All acts, codes, and statutes, and all parts of them and all amendments to them of a general and permanent nature in effect on December 31, 1987, are repealed unless:
Expressly continued by specific provision of this Code;
Omitted improperly or erroneously as a consequence of compilation, revision, or both, of the laws enacted prior to this Code, including, without limitation, any omissions that may have occurred during the compilation, revision, or both, of the laws composing this Code; or
Omitted, changed, or modified by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission, or its predecessors, in a manner not authorized by the laws or the constitutions of Arkansas in effect at the time of the omission, change, or modification.
In the event one of the above exceptions should be applicable, the law as it existed on December 31, 1987, shall continue to be valid, effective, and controlling.
History.
Acts 1987, No. 267, § 4.
Case Notes
Absence of Specific Repeal.
In the absence of any specific repeal of former A.S.A. § 81-1313(f)(1) (see now §§ 11-9-519 — 11-9-526), it was improperly or erroneously omitted from the Code, and therefore remains in effect pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Whirlpool Corp., 39 Ark. App. 62, 837 S.W.2d 293 (1992).
Unauthorized Changes.
Substitution of “or” for “and/or” following “permit fee” in § 3-9-223(f) upon codification was not authorized by the laws or the Constitution of Arkansas in effect at the time of the omission, change or modification, and thus the “and/or” language of former A.S.A § 48-1410 is still controlling. Cox v. City of Caddo Valley, 305 Ark. 155, 806 S.W.2d 6 (1991).
Cited:
Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d 509 (1996); Bourne v. Board of Trustees of Little Rock Policeman's Relief Pension Fund, 347 Ark. 19, 59 S.W.3d 432 (2001).
Bourne v. Bd. of Trs., 59 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 6דOn that basis, Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-103 applies to correct the error.”
Echols v. State, 936 S.W.2d 509 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2דSection 4(a) of Act 267, codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-103 (a) (1987), specifically provides that “[a]ll acts, codes and statutes, and all parts of them and all amendments to them of a general and permanent nature in effect on December 31, 1987 are repealed,” with some…”
Cox v. City of Caddo Valley, 806 S.W.2d 6 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 4דArk. Code Ann. § 1-2-103 (1987). One such exception occurs if the act or statute is omitted, changed, or modified by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission in a manner not authorized by the laws or the constitutions of Arkansas in effect at the time of the omission, change, or…”
White v. Gregg Agric. Enter., 37 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דThe Davis court stated: The capacities of a human being cannot be arbitrarily and finally divided and written off by percentages. The fact that a man has once received compensation as for 50 percent of total disability does not mean that ever after he is in the eyes of…”
Pledger v. Mid-State Constr. & Materials, Inc., 925 S.W.2d 412 (Ark. 1996). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 1-2-103 (Repl. 1996), provides that all acts, codes, and statutes in effect on December 31, 1987 are repealed by the 1987 Arkansas Code unless: (1) Expressly continued by specific provision of this Code; (2) Omitted improperly or erroneously as a…”
Vasquez D. Hayes v. Dexter Payne, Dir., Arkansas Div. of Corr., 2025 Ark. 52 (Ark. 2025). · cites it 2דThe sentencing order reflects that Hayes was convicted of five Class Y felonies: two counts of rape, one count of aggravated- residential burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of kidnapping.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 1-2-103(b) — 1 case
White v. Gregg Agric. Enter., 37 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “The Davis court stated: The capacities of a human being cannot be arbitrarily and finally divided and written off by percentages. The fact that a man has once received compensation as for 50 percent of total disability does not mean that ever after he is in the eyes of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.