Bob Hankins Distributing Co. v. May
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentTom Glaze, Justice
In ruling Arkansas’s Garnishment Code unconstitutional, the majority does not claim that no notice was given the appellant garnishee, See Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965); or that the notice effected here was not reasonably calculated to reach the appellant. Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). The majority rests its decision on the narrow proposition that Arkansas law fails to provide “adequate” notice to the appellant of the nature of the garnishment proceedings against it. In my view, the law and the facts cannot support such a holding.
In Mullane, the Supreme…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Curtis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- Lyons v. Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- St. Clair v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.