application of the same rule (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

application of the same rule in Arkansas

6 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1894–1974 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
White v. United States green
scotus · 1938
2 sentences

1974White v. United States, 305 U.S. 281 , 59 S. Ct. 179 , 83 L.

1974White v. United States, 305 U.S. 281 , 59 S. Ct. 179 , 83 L.

11974–1974
United States v. REESE green
scotus · 1876
1 sentence

1928In discussing the application of the same rule in United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214 , 23 L. ed. 563, it was said: “We are not able to reject a part which is unconstitutional and retain the remainder, because it is not possible to separate that which is unconstitutional, if theie be any such, from that which is not..

11928–1928
Arkansas National Bank v. Johnson neutral
ark · 1916
1 sentence

1923In the application of the same principle in Arkansas National Bank v. Johnson, 122 Ark. 1 , and cases cited, this court held that, where the possession of drafts and money is obtained from the owner through a trick or device, with the intent, at the time the party receives them, to convert the same to his own use, and the owner of the property parts merely with the possession and not with the title, the party receiving the property is guilty of larceny.

11923–1923
Harrison v. Abington neutral
ark · 1919
1 sentence

1920This is also in accord with the decision of this court in the recent case of Harrison v. Abington, 140 Ark. 115 , which construed a special statute, but involved the application of the same principle in the interpretation of two apparently conflicting sections of a statute.

11920–1920
Emert v. Missouri green
scotus · 1895
1 sentence

1910It is insisted that this particular question was not raised nor decided in the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases cited above; but in the case of Emert v. Missouri, supra, though the particular question discussed is as to whether or not the statute violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the opinion contains, we think, a distinct recognition of the validity of the Missouri statute imposing a tax on the privilege of peddling certain articles and exempting others.

11910–1910
Hanks v. Harris neutral
ark · 1874
1 sentence

1894Hanks v. Harris, 29 Ark. 323 ; Healy v. Conner, 40 Ark. 352 .

11894–1894
Healy v. Conner green
ark · 1883
1 sentence

1894Hanks v. Harris, 29 Ark. 323 ; Healy v. Conner, 40 Ark. 352 .

11894–1894

Where else courts name it

TN 19 (1916–2014) NY 18 (1857–1988) CA 17 (1893–2023) MO 7 (1879–1915) PA 7 (1882–2008) AR 6 (1894–1974) NC 6 (1884–1932) AL 6 (1908–1968) FL 5 (1960–2008) IN 5 (1879–2023) NE 4 (1888–1904) MN 4 (1907–1971) AZ 4 (1953–2023) IL 4 (1901–1977) NJ 4 (1880–2003) MD 3 (1920–2011) ME 3 (1876–1996) OK 3 (1916–1925) KS 3 (1898–2007) MI 2 (1916–1976) IA 2 (1905–1919) LA 2 (1935–1956) CT 2 (1942–1942) TX 2 (1936–1958) VA 2 (1935–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check