38 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pickens v. Blackgreen2 sentences2012With respect to Parcel 1, Mary conveyed “the land and mineral rights,” and with respect to Parcel 2, she conveyed “the land.” The paramount principle in interpreting wills is that the testator’s intent governs, and “the testator’s intent is to be gathered from the four corners of the instrument itself.” Pickens v. Black, 318 Ark. 474, 480 , 885 S.W.2d 872, 875 (1994). 2012With respect to Parcel 1, Mary conveyed “the land and mineral rights,” and with respect to Parcel 2, she conveyed “the land.” The paramount principle in interpreting wills is that the testator’s intent governs, and “the testator’s intent is to be gathered from the four corners of the instrument itself.” Pickens v. Black, 318 Ark. 474, 480 , 885 S.W.2d 872, 875 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
Kidd v. Sparksgreen2 sentences2012“A specific legacy is the bequest of a particular thing, as distinguished from all others of the same or similar kind, and must be satisfied only by the delivery of the particular thing.” Kidd v. Sparks, 276 Ark. 85, 87 , 633 S.W.2d 13, 15 (1982). 2012“A specific legacy is the bequest of a particular thing, as distinguished from all others of the same or similar kind, and must be satisfied only by the delivery of the particular thing.” Kidd v. Sparks, 276 Ark. 85, 87 , 633 S.W.2d 13, 15 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Cleaves v. Parkergreen2 sentences2008See Cleaves v. Parker, 93 Ark. 2008See Cleaves v. Parker, 93 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Flowers v. Norrisgreen2 sentences2005Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 , 765 , 68 S.W.3d 289 , 292 (2002) ("It is . . . axiomatic that in statutory interpretation matters, we are first and foremost concerned with ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly.") (citing State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161 , 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999)). 2005Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 , 765 , 68 S.W.3d 289 , 292 (2002) ("It is . . . axiomatic that in statutory interpretation matters, we are first and foremost concerned with ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly.") (citing State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161 , 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Harp v. Harp
green
2 sentences2003In re Estate of Harp, 316 Ark. 761 , 875 S.W.2d 490 (1994); Carpenter v. Miller, 71 Ark. 2003In re Estate of Harp, 316 Ark. 761 , 875 S.W.2d 490 (1994); Carpenter v. Miller, 71 Ark. | 5 | 1994–2003 |
Bailey v. Delta Trust & Bank
green
2 sentences2018Bailey v. Delta Tr. & Bank , 359 Ark. 424 , 198 S.W.3d 506 (2004) ; Hanna v. Hanna , 273 Ark. 399 , 619 S.W.2d 655 (1981). 2018Bailey v. Delta Tr. & Bank , 359 Ark. 424 , 198 S.W.3d 506 (2004) ; Hanna v. Hanna , 273 Ark. 399 , 619 S.W.2d 655 (1981). | 3 | 2015–2018 |
Carpenter v. Miller
green
2 sentences2008Carpenter v. Miller, 71 Ark. 2003In re Estate of Harp, 316 Ark. 761 , 875 S.W.2d 490 (1994); Carpenter v. Miller, 71 Ark. | 3 | 2003–2008 |
Matter of Estate of Lindsey
green
2 sentences2004Id. (citing In re: Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596 , 832 S.W.2d 808 (1992)). 2004Id. (citing In re: Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596 , 832 S.W.2d 808 (1992)). | 3 | 1994–2004 |
Hanna v. Hanna
neutral
2 sentences2018Bailey v. Delta Tr. & Bank , 359 Ark. 424 , 198 S.W.3d 506 (2004) ; Hanna v. Hanna , 273 Ark. 399 , 619 S.W.2d 655 (1981). 2018Bailey v. Delta Tr. & Bank , 359 Ark. 424 , 198 S.W.3d 506 (2004) ; Hanna v. Hanna , 273 Ark. 399 , 619 S.W.2d 655 (1981). | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock
green
2 sentences2018Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock , 335 Ark. 456 , 463, 983 S.W.2d 915 , 919 (1998). 2018Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock , 335 Ark. 456 , 463, 983 S.W.2d 915 , 919 (1998). | 2 | 2004–2018 |
Cross v. Manning
neutral
2 sentences1964They are well stated in Cross v. Manning, 211 Ark. 803 , 202 S. W. 2d 584 , where there appears the following rules: 1. ‘ ‘ ‘ The paramount principle in the construction of wills is that the general intention of the testator, if not in contravention of public policy or some rule of law, shall govern. ’ 5. “ ‘Wills are liberally construed, and every legitimate conclusion is indulged in order to reach a just and equitable result. . . and in cases of doubt the construction should be in favor of the first taker because it is against the policy of the law to tie up property . . .’ ” Applying these 1964They are well stated in Cross v. Manning, 211 Ark. 803 , 202 S. W. 2d 584 , where there appears the following rules: 1. ‘ ‘ ‘ The paramount principle in the construction of wills is that the general intention of the testator, if not in contravention of public policy or some rule of law, shall govern. ’ 5. “ ‘Wills are liberally construed, and every legitimate conclusion is indulged in order to reach a just and equitable result. . . and in cases of doubt the construction should be in favor of the first taker because it is against the policy of the law to tie up property . . .’ ” Applying these | 2 | 1964–1994 |
Motes/Henes Trust v. Motes
green
2 sentences1991Motes/Henes Trust v. Motes, 297 Ark. 380 , 761 S.W.2d 938 (1988). 1991Motes/Henes Trust v. Motes, 297 Ark. 380 , 761 S.W.2d 938 (1988). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Lockhart v. Lyons
neutral
2 sentences1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . 1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . | 2 | 1934–1946 |
First National Bank of Ft. Smith v. Marre
neutral
2 sentences1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . 1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . | 2 | 1934–1946 |
Kelly v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . 1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . | 2 | 1934–1946 |
Wooldridge v. Gilman
neutral
2 sentences1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . 1946Wooldridge v. Gilman, 170 Ark. 163 , 279 S. W. 20 ; Lockhart v. Lyons, 174 Ark. 703 , 297 S. W. 1018 ; Kelly v. Kelly, 176 Ark. 548 , 3 S. W. 2d 305 ; First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Marre, 183 Ark. 699 , 38 S. W. 2d 14 ;” Kirk v. Mason, 188 Ark. 1000 , 68 S. W. 2d 1012 . | 2 | 1934–1946 |
Union Trust Company v. Madigan
green
2 sentences1941Second: Should Pryor Goforth be required to contribute to Walter Goforth for the personal property bequeathed to Walter taken to pay debts of the estate and expenses of administration?” The rule of this court in the construction of wills is stated in Union Trust Company v. Madigan, 183 Ark. 158 , 35 S. W. 2d 349 , where it is said: ‘ ‘ The paramount principle in the construction of wills is that the general intention of the testator, if not in contravention of public policy or some rule of law, shall govern.” And in Pearrow v. Vaden, 201 Ark. 1146, 1150 , 148 S. W. 2d 320 , we said: “The purpo 1941Second: Should Pryor Goforth be required to contribute to Walter Goforth for the personal property bequeathed to Walter taken to pay debts of the estate and expenses of administration?” The rule of this court in the construction of wills is stated in Union Trust Company v. Madigan, 183 Ark. 158 , 35 S. W. 2d 349 , where it is said: ‘ ‘ The paramount principle in the construction of wills is that the general intention of the testator, if not in contravention of public policy or some rule of law, shall govern.” And in Pearrow v. Vaden, 201 Ark. 1146, 1150 , 148 S. W. 2d 320 , we said: “The purpo | 2 | 1941–1941 |
Carmody v. Betts
green
1 sentence2022Carmody v. Betts, 104 Ark. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fisher v. Boling
green
1 sentence2021Fisher v. Boling, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Treat v. Hyde
neutral
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Roberson v. Roberson
neutral
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taylor v. Woods
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Havens
neutral
2 sentences2005Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 , 765 , 68 S.W.3d 289 , 292 (2002) ("It is . . . axiomatic that in statutory interpretation matters, we are first and foremost concerned with ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly.") (citing State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161 , 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999)). 2005Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 , 765 , 68 S.W.3d 289 , 292 (2002) ("It is . . . axiomatic that in statutory interpretation matters, we are first and foremost concerned with ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly.") (citing State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161 , 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Metzgar v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences2005Metzgar v. Rodgers, 83 Ark. 2005Metzgar v. Rodgers, 83 Ark.App. 354 , 128 S.W.3d 5 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinion of the Justices
green
1 sentence2001The trend among the modern courts is to give the term `public purpose' a broad expansive definition." Id. at 956, citing Opinion of the Justices No. 269, 384 So.2d 1051 (Ala. 1980). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clark v. National Bank of Commerce
green
2 sentences2000Clark v. National Bank of Commerce, 304 Ark. 352 , 802 S.W.2d 452 (1991). 2000Clark v. National Bank of Commerce, 304 Ark. 352 , 802 S.W.2d 452 (1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Estate of Conover
green
2 sentences1992In re Estate of Conover, 304 Ark. 268 , 801 S.W.2d 299 (1990). 1992In re Estate of Conover, 304 Ark. 268 , 801 S.W.2d 299 (1990). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
McLane v. Chancey, Administrator
green
2 sentences1981McLane v. Chancey, Admr., 211 Ark. 280 , 200 S.W. 2d 782 (1947). 1981McLane v. Chancey, Admr., 211 Ark. 280 , 200 S.W. 2d 782 (1947). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil Company
green
2 sentences1974Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil Co., 254 Ark. 332 , 493 S.W. 2d 439 ; 26 CJS 1012, Deeds Sec. 140 (2). 1974Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil Co., 254 Ark. 332 , 493 S.W. 2d 439 ; 26 CJS 1012, Deeds Sec. 140 (2). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Rader v. Davis
green
2 sentences1951We agree with the holding in Rader v. Davis, 154 Iowa 306 , 134 N. W. 849 , 38 L. 1951We agree with the holding in Rader v. Davis, 154 Iowa 306 , 134 N. W. 849 , 38 L. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Kirk v. Mason neutral | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Pearrow v. Vaden green | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Union National Bank v. Kirby neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.