elementary principle in Arkansas

1980In Townes v. Oklahoma Mill Company, 85 Ark. 596 , 109 S.W. 548 (1908), the court said: It is an elementary principle needing no citation of authority to support, that there is no breach of a contract where performance is prevented by the conduct of the other party.

1980In Townes v. Oklahoma Mill Company, 85 Ark. 596 , 109 S.W. 548 (1908), the court said: It is an elementary principle needing no citation of authority to support, that there is no breach of a contract where performance is prevented by the conduct of the other party.

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1985Cemetery Board v. Memorial Properties, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W. 2d 715 (1981), is applicable to the present case: It is an elementary principle of administrative law that an issue must be raised at the lower level to be pursued on appeal.

1985This was clearly stated in Hennesey v. SEC, 285 F. 2d 511 (3d Cir. 1960), where the court said: It is well established that issues not effectively presented to an administrative agency, where ample opportunity to do so has been afforded, cannot be raised on appeal of that agency’s decision.

1981This was clearly stated in Hennesey v. SEC, 285 F. 2d 511 (3d Cir. 1960), where the court said: It is well established that issues not effectively presented to an administrative agency, where ample opportunity to do so has been afforded, cannot be raised on appeal of that agency’s decision.

1981As early as McDonald v. Shaw, 81 Ark. 235 , 98 S.W. 952 (1906), this court stated that in interpreting provisions of a will: It is an elementary rule of construction that a bequest or devise will not fail because of a mere inaccuracy in the designation of the beneficiary, where the meaning of the testator can be gathered with reasonable certainty from the instrument itself, or where the identity of the object of his bounty can be shown by extrinsic evidence and such evidence is always admissible for the purpose of identifying the beneficiary, where there is uncertainty or ambiguity in the desi

1981As early as McDonald v. Shaw, 81 Ark. 235 , 98 S.W. 952 (1906), this court stated that in interpreting provisions of a will: It is an elementary rule of construction that a bequest or devise will not fail because of a mere inaccuracy in the designation of the beneficiary, where the meaning of the testator can be gathered with reasonable certainty from the instrument itself, or where the identity of the object of his bounty can be shown by extrinsic evidence and such evidence is always admissible for the purpose of identifying the beneficiary, where there is uncertainty or ambiguity in the desi

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513, 552 ; Eason v. State, 11 Ark. 481 ; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 , 43 Am.Rep. 275 ; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 , 213 S.W. 762 ; and in Standard Oil Co. of La. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114 , 239 S.W. 753 , this court quoted the language of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 , 15 S.Ct. 207 , 39 L.Ed. 297 , that `the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'" [3] [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the ca

1970Ed. 297 , that ‘the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.’ ” [Footnote 6 in quoted material.] This constitutional provision was involved in the case of Straub v. Gordon, 27 Ark. 625 , decided in 1872. [Footnote 7 in quoted material.] Chap. 18, sec. 22, of the Revised Statutes of 1836 is now sec. 5526, Pope’s Digest and Sec. 12-609, Ark.

1911In the case of Hannaford v. Dowdle, 75 Ark. 127 , which involved an attack by the heirs of a deceased wife upon a conveyance made by her to her husband, we said: “Appellees invoked the elementary rule of law that gifts from the wife to the husband are to be scrutinized with great jealousy.

1907The following statement in Hannaford v. Dowdle, 75 Ark. 127 , is as applicable to this case as to that: ' “Appellees invoke the elementary rule of law that gifts from the wife to the husband aré to be scrutinized with great jealousy.

2024“It is an elementary principle of administrative law that an issue must be raised at the hearing below in order to be raised on appeal.” Bolding, 2022 Ark.

2022Stilley v. Sup. Ct. Comm. on Prof’l Conduct, 370 Ark. 294 , 259 S.W.3d 395 (2007).

2022Stilley v. Sup. Ct. Comm. on Prof’l Conduct, 370 Ark. 294 , 259 S.W.3d 395 (2007).

2012The Court commented that “[i]t is an elementary rule of constitutional law that one may not retain the benefits of the Act while attacking the constitutionality of one of its important conditions.” Fahey, 332 U.S. at 255 , 67 S.Ct. 1552 .

2012The Court commented that “[i]t is an elementary rule of constitutional law that one may not retain the benefits of the Act while attacking the constitutionality of one of its important conditions.” Fahey, 332 U.S. at 255 , 67 S.Ct. 1552 .

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

2010See also Moore v. McCuen , 317 Ark. 105 , 108 , 876 S.W.2d 237 (1994) (same). 18 City of Fayetteville , 369 Ark. at 471 . 19 Hutcheson v. Pitts , 170 Ark. 248 , 251 , 278 S.W. 639 (1926) ("It has been frequently said that it is an elementary principle that the law abhors vacancies in public offices, and great precaution is usually taken against their occurrence."). 20 See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices , 672 A.2d 4 (Del. 1995) (constitutional holding-over provision serves to prevent vacancy or interregnum in public office so that public business will not be subjected to doubt or dispute); Jano

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1994Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 295 Ark. 9 , 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988); Arkansas Cemetery Bd. v. North Hills Memorial Gardens, 272 Ark. 172 , 616 S.W.2d 713 (1981); Hawthorne v. Davis, 268 Ark. 131 , 594 S.W.2d 844 (1980); Jeffrey Stone Co. v. Raulston, 242 Ark. 13 , 412 S.W.2d 275 (1967).

1990Spires v. Russell, 300 Ark. 530 , 780 S.W.2d 547 (1989) (Hickman, J., dissenting.) So I question the opinion in this case which contains dictum that could lead to an extension of this court's rule making power.

1990Spires v. Russell, 300 Ark. 530 , 780 S.W.2d 547 (1989) (Hickman, J., dissenting.) So I question the opinion in this case which contains dictum that could lead to an extension of this court's rule making power.

1990Second Injury Fund v. Yarbrough, 19 Ark.