Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1897–1922 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Hawkins
neutral
1 sentence1922Meyers v. Hawkins, 67 Ark. 413 ; Hall v. Wellman Lbr. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
National Bank v. Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1910In passing upon this question, the Supreme Court of fhe United States in the case of National Bank v. Insurance Company, 104 U. S. 54 , said: “The master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, showed that the modern doctrine of equity, as regards property disposed of by persons in a fiduciary position, is that, whether the disposition of it be rightful or wrongful, the beneficial owner is entitled to the proceeds, whatever be their form, provided only he can identify them * * *; and that there is no difference between investments in the purchase of lands, or chattels, or bonds, or loans, or moneys d | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Apperson & Co. v. W. E. & C. L. Moore
neutral
1 sentence1906Benjamin on Sales, § 81; Apperson v. Moore, 30 Ark. 56 . | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Bazemore v. Mullins
neutral
1 sentence1901Dig., § 3469), yet “it is a settled doctrine of equity” — as was said by Judge Cockrill in Bazemore v. Mullins, 52 Ark. 207 — “never to lend its aid to one who invokes it for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud.” The uncontroverted proof of Patton, the lessor, under whom appellees claim, is as follows: “I recollect he (Hines, the lessee) commenced immediately after the lease was made, and worked continuously on that fall, next spring, and until the next fall and winter, when we made this agreement, — worked right on until we had an agreement by which he was permitted to quit work until a railr | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Webb v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1898Our attention has been called to the decision in the case of Randolph v. Little, 62 Ala. 396 , in support of the opposite doctrine; but, on careful'inspection, it will appear that the dissenting opinion in Webb v. Edwards, 46 Ala. 17 , upon which Randolph v. Little is expressly based, was to the effect that evidences of indebtedness owing by a garnishee to the defendant in judgment, and other choses in action, were not the subject of exemption under the peculiar statutes of Alabama. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Randolph v. Little
neutral
1 sentence1898Our attention has been called to the decision in the case of Randolph v. Little, 62 Ala. 396 , in support of the opposite doctrine; but, on careful'inspection, it will appear that the dissenting opinion in Webb v. Edwards, 46 Ala. 17 , upon which Randolph v. Little is expressly based, was to the effect that evidences of indebtedness owing by a garnishee to the defendant in judgment, and other choses in action, were not the subject of exemption under the peculiar statutes of Alabama. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Pate v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1897Pate v. Johnson, 15 Ark. 275 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.