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.
5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1962–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.green2 sentences1962See also Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co, 336 U.S. 490 , 69 S.Ct. 684 , 93 L.Ed. 834 ." In Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W. 2d 45 , this Court had occasion to deal with an agreement that was found to violate Amendment 34 due to the Union's announced intention to cancel the contract under a sixty-day notice clause if the employer hired non-union men. 1962See also Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co, 336 U.S. 490 , 69 S.Ct. 684 , 93 L.Ed. 834 ." In Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W. 2d 45 , this Court had occasion to deal with an agreement that was found to violate Amendment 34 due to the Union's announced intention to cancel the contract under a sixty-day notice clause if the employer hired non-union men. | 1 | 1 |
Self v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1962See also Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co, 336 U.S. 490 , 69 S.Ct. 684 , 93 L.Ed. 834 ." In Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W. 2d 45 , this Court had occasion to deal with an agreement that was found to violate Amendment 34 due to the Union's announced intention to cancel the contract under a sixty-day notice clause if the employer hired non-union men. 1962Ed. 834 .” In Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , this Court had occasion to deal with an agreement that was found to violate Amendment 34 due to the Union’s announced intention to cancel the contract under a sixty-day notice clause if the employer hired non-union men. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weidrick v. Arnold
green
2 sentences1994Dr. Moose filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 1993, contending that this court’s decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138 , 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), abolished the sixty-day notice requirement and the ninety-day extension. 1994Dr. Moose filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 1993, contending that this court’s decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138 , 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), abolished the sixty-day notice requirement and the ninety-day extension. | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Gay v. Rabon
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 8-9 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Thompson v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1995Thompson, 319 Ark. 6 , 889 S.W.2d 31 ; Pugh v. St. 1995Thompson, 319 Ark. 6 , 889 S.W.2d 31 ; Pugh v. St. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Jackson v. Ozment
yellow
2 sentences1992Rule 3 states: "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court who shall note thereon the date and precise time of filing." The circuit court relied on our previous holding in Jackson v. Ozment, 283 Ark. 100 , 671 S.W.2d 736 (1984) and found that Rule 3 did not supersede the sixty-day notice statute. 1992Rule 3 states: "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court who shall note thereon the date and precise time of filing." The circuit court relied on our previous holding in Jackson v. Ozment, 283 Ark. 100 , 671 S.W.2d 736 (1984) and found that Rule 3 did not supersede the sixty-day notice statute. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dawson v. Gerritsen
green
2 sentences1992However, in deciding whether to award attorney fees against the losing plaintiff and in favor of the doctor and the hospital involved, we noted that the sixty-day notice requirement was "manifestly harsh" and "an obvious hardship, the equal of which may not exist elsewhere in the law." Dawson II, 295 Ark. at 211 , 748 S.W.2d at 35 . 1992However, in deciding whether to award attorney fees against the losing plaintiff and in favor of the doctor and the hospital involved, we noted that the sixty-day notice requirement was "manifestly harsh" and "an obvious hardship, the equal of which may not exist elsewhere in the law." Dawson II, 295 Ark. at 211 , 748 S.W.2d at 35 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.