Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bryant v. Picado

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 24, 1999No. 98-1223Published

1ConcurrenceRobert L. Brown, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion and write to emphasize what today’s holding does. All parties agree that chancery court cannot enjoin a pending criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Billy/Dot, Inc. v. Fields, 322 Ark. 272, 908 S.W.2d 335 (1995); S & S News Agency v. Freeze, 247 Ark. 1078, 449 S.W.2d 404 (1970). Today’s decision makes it clear that even when no criminal prosecution or investigation is pending, chancery court has no jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a criminal statute. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies on Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267, 613 S.W.2d 589…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Handy Dan Improvement Center, Inc. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Bates v. BatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
  3. Billy/Dot, Inc. v. FieldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  4. Daley v. GatewoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  5. Bennett v. N.A.A.C.P.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1963

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API