Legal Opinion · Dissent

Walther v. Carrothers Construction Co. of Arkansas, LLC

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 19, 2016No. CV-15-799Published

1Dissent

Karen R. Baker, Justice,

dissenting.'

Because I would affirm the circuit court, I must dissent. The majority summarily reverses the circuit court with little analysis and ignores our precedent set in Arkansas Beverage Company v. Heath, 257 Ark. 991, 521 S.W.2d 835 (1975).

The question here is whether the treatment process of converting raw surface water into potable drinking water through the complex process used by Carrothers, including injecting chemicals into the water, constitutes manufacturing. The answer is yes.

In determining whether manufacturing has occurred, in Ragland v. Arkansas…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Frozen Food ExpressSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Arkansas Beverage Company v. HeathSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  3. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Luckett v. Allied Drum Service, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Prestonsburg Water Co. v. Prestonsburg Board of Sup'rsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939
  5. Ragland v. Arkansas Valley Coal Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API