repealing clause in Arkansas

1924Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 ; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90 ; Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91 ; Bank of Blytheville v. State, 148 Ark. 504 ; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. North Little Rock, 157 Ark. 291 .

1911Or, if the two acts are not in express terms repugnant, then the latter act must cover the whole subject of the first and embrace new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first.” Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 .

1965Co. v. State, 86 Ark. 343 , 111 S. W. 260 , this court, through Justice Hart, quoted the general rule on this subject, as follows; “Where there is, by a general clause, a repeal of all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the statute, and it is apparent that the repealing statute is to be substituted for the one repealed, the unconstitutional character of the repealing statute will also render void the repealing clause.

1965Co. v. State, 86 Ark. 343 , 111 S. W. 260 , this court, through Justice Hart, quoted the general rule on this subject, as follows; “Where there is, by a general clause, a repeal of all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the statute, and it is apparent that the repealing statute is to be substituted for the one repealed, the unconstitutional character of the repealing statute will also render void the repealing clause.

1960Or, if the two acts are not in express terms repugnant, then this latter act must cover the whole subject of the first and embrace new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first.” See also Curlin v. Watson, 187 Ark. 685 , 61 S. W. 2d 701 .

1960Or, if the two acts are not in express terms repugnant, then this latter act must cover the whole subject of the first and embrace new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first.” See also Curlin v. Watson, 187 Ark. 685 , 61 S. W. 2d 701 .

1928In the recent case of Cordell v. Kent, 174 Ark. 503 , 295 S. W. 404 , we said: “The repealing’ clause in act 126 does not express^ repeal act 114.

1928In the recent case of Cordell v. Kent, 174 Ark. 503 , 295 S. W. 404 , we said: “The repealing’ clause in act 126 does not express^ repeal act 114.

1924Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 ; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90 ; Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91 ; Bank of Blytheville v. State, 148 Ark. 504 ; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. North Little Rock, 157 Ark. 291 .

1924Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 ; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90 ; Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91 ; Bank of Blytheville v. State, 148 Ark. 504 ; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. North Little Rock, 157 Ark. 291 .

1924Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 ; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90 ; Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91 ; Bank of Blytheville v. State, 148 Ark. 504 ; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. North Little Rock, 157 Ark. 291 .

1924Coats v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 ; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90 ; Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91 ; Bank of Blytheville v. State, 148 Ark. 504 ; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. North Little Rock, 157 Ark. 291 .

1913Co. v. Waddington, 82 N. E. 1030 , “and even an express declaration of a repeal will not be given that effect when it is apparent that the Legislature did not so intend.” “An absolute repeal may be construed as a qualified or partial repeal, where other parts of the statute show such to have been the real intent.” 1 Lewis’ Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 293.