Powell v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentMinor W. Millwee, Justice
As I read the opinion of the majority, it is now the law in Arkansas that the operation of a modest undertaking parlor in a mixed residential and business area of a city of the second class constitutes a nuisance per se and may be abated as such by injunction. This holding is so foreign to the traditional attitude of this court and the general legislative policy of this state that I must respectfully dissent.
While the majority conclude that the area in question here is “essentially” residential, they proceed to apply the so-called “modern rule,” which is, in those jurisdictions which…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Durfey v. ThalheimerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Ex parte FooteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Jones v. Kelley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Murphy v. CuppSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.