savings clause in Arkansas

1988Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962)] minors have three years after their disabilities are removed in which to bring an action for medical malpractice, that in Graham v. Cisco, 248 Ark. 6 , 449 S.W.2d 949 (1980), we held that the cause of action by a minor for medical malpractice was extended by the savings clause contained in § 37-226, even though the period of limitations for bringing an action for medical malpractice generally was limited to two years under Ark.

1988Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962)] minors have three years after their disabilities are removed in which to bring an action for medical malpractice, that in Graham v. Cisco, 248 Ark. 6 , 449 S.W.2d 949 (1980), we held that the cause of action by a minor for medical malpractice was extended by the savings clause contained in § 37-226, even though the period of limitations for bringing an action for medical malpractice generally was limited to two years under Ark.

2016Cf. Fort Smith Gas Co. v. Kincannon, supra (granting the writ of prohibition and holding that venue statutes, being procedural in nature, are to be applied retroactively, even as to cases that are properly filed under a repealed statute, unless the new act contains a savings clause). 23 Cite as 2016 Ark. 22 however, prescribes the venue of actions and . . . with the wisdom of its action in such matters, the courts have nothing to do”).

2011BedRoc , 541 U.S. at 183 . 27 Having settled on what it took to be the plain reading of the savings clause, the court addressed whether that reading was absurd, as it is required to do under the principles of statutory interpretation noted above.

2011Sincerely, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General DM/RO:cyh 1 E.g., Thornhill v. Alabama , 310 U.S. 88 , 95 (1940). 2 Turner Broad.

2011When the language of a statute is plain, "the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the test is not absurd — is to enforce it according to its terms." Dodd v. United States , 545 U.S. 353 , [359] (2005). . . .

1976Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962), which provides: “If any person entitled to bring any action, under any law of this state, be, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, under twenty-one [21] years of age, or insane or imprisoned beyond the limits of the state, such person shall be at liberty to bring such action within three [3] years next after full age, or such disability may be removed.” To avoid the effect of the savings clause, appellee relies upon such cases as Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 217 N.C. 139 , 7 S.E. 2d 475 (1940) and Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186 , 72 P. 936

1976Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962), which provides: “If any person entitled to bring any action, under any law of this state, be, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, under twenty-one [21] years of age, or insane or imprisoned beyond the limits of the state, such person shall be at liberty to bring such action within three [3] years next after full age, or such disability may be removed.” To avoid the effect of the savings clause, appellee relies upon such cases as Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 217 N.C. 139 , 7 S.E. 2d 475 (1940) and Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186 , 72 P. 936

1976Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962), which provides: “If any person entitled to bring any action, under any law of this state, be, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, under twenty-one [21] years of age, or insane or imprisoned beyond the limits of the state, such person shall be at liberty to bring such action within three [3] years next after full age, or such disability may be removed.” To avoid the effect of the savings clause, appellee relies upon such cases as Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 217 N.C. 139 , 7 S.E. 2d 475 (1940) and Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186 , 72 P. 936

1976Stat. Ann. § 37-226 (Repl. 1962), which provides: “If any person entitled to bring any action, under any law of this state, be, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, under twenty-one [21] years of age, or insane or imprisoned beyond the limits of the state, such person shall be at liberty to bring such action within three [3] years next after full age, or such disability may be removed.” To avoid the effect of the savings clause, appellee relies upon such cases as Johnson v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 217 N.C. 139 , 7 S.E. 2d 475 (1940) and Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186 , 72 P. 936

1970Upon that point we held in Schuman v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495 , 181 S. W. 2d (1944), that even though the original savings clause adopted in 1844 was limited to statutes of limitation then on the books, the scope of the savings clause was broadened in 1899 to apply to any cause of action regardless of whether it existed prior to 1844 or after-wards.

1969Zini v. First National Bank of Little Rock, 228 Ark. 325 , 307 S.W. 2d 874 .

1969Zini v. First National Bank of Little Rock, 228 Ark. 325 , 307 S.W. 2d 874 .

1969Schuman v. Westbrook, supra. Appellees rely upon the case of Rinke v. Weedman, 232 Ark. 900 , 341 S.W. 2d 44 .

1969Schuman v. Westbrook, supra. Appellees rely upon the case of Rinke v. Weedman, 232 Ark. 900 , 341 S.W. 2d 44 .

1962The case of Grimes v. J ones, 193 Ark. 858 , 103 S. W. 2d 359 , affords the appellants no support; because in that case the nunc pro tunc order contained no savings clause for innocent third persons or unnotified parties; whereas the nunc pro tunc order of December 4, 1961 here before us contains such a savings clause.

1962The case of Grimes v. J ones, 193 Ark. 858 , 103 S. W. 2d 359 , affords the appellants no support; because in that case the nunc pro tunc order contained no savings clause for innocent third persons or unnotified parties; whereas the nunc pro tunc order of December 4, 1961 here before us contains such a savings clause.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.

1944Cas. 1914C, 419; and Lightle v. Laws, 123 Ark. 537 , 186 S. W. 73 .” The same statute {% 13860) that contains the savings clause for minors (as mentioned in the last quotation) also includes insane persons; so we affirm so much of the decree of the chancery court, in the case at bar, as denied Kaplan’s plea of innocent purchaser.

1944Cas. 1914C, 419; and Lightle v. Laws, 123 Ark. 537 , 186 S. W. 73 .” The same statute {% 13860) that contains the savings clause for minors (as mentioned in the last quotation) also includes insane persons; so we affirm so much of the decree of the chancery court, in the case at bar, as denied Kaplan’s plea of innocent purchaser.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.

1944Hodges v. Harkleroad, 74 Ark. 343 , 85 S. W. 779 ; George v. Hefley, 182 Ark. 678 , 32 S. W. 2d 445 ; Hisey v. Sloan, 180 Ark. 797 , 22 S. W. 2d 1005 ; and cases there cited.