Looper v. Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass'n
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Darrell Hickman, Justice.
In a foreclosure proceeding, the chancellor refused to confirm the sale of a residence. The reasons given were because the purchase price shocked her conscience and other circumstances existed which justified the refusal. The question presented involves the law concerning the confirmation of judicial sales when an inadequate price is paid.
The appellants argue there is no Arkansas case holding that a sale can be set aside simply because the sale price is inadequate. Conceding that we have said a sale may be set aside because it “shocks the conscience of the court,” the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- CAPOZZI v. AntonoplosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Wasp Oil, Inc. v. Arkansas Oil & Gas, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
- George v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- First National Bank of Jefferson Parish v. M/v Lightning Power, Eagle Fleet, Inc., Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Sipes v. MunroSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- Seeco, Inc. v. HalesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
- Pennington v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- McKay v. McKaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.