incompatibility doctrine in Arkansas

42 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2010 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 (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Byrd v. Stategreen ark · 1966 · cited in 32 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–2009 2 sentences 2009With regard to any other potential conflict of interest issue, I believe it is necessary to consider whether a Highway Commissioner's service in one of the positions you have named violates any of the three possible types of legal prohibitions against the so-called "dual service" by a public officer or employee that have been identified by the Arkansas Supreme Court: constitutional prohibitions, statutory prohibitions, and, if no constitutional or statutory prohibition applies, the common law prohibition known as the "doctrine of incompatibility." See generally Byrd v. State , 240 Ark. 743 , 4 2009With regard to any other potential conflict of interest issue, I believe it is necessary to consider whether a Highway Commissioner's service in one of the positions you have named violates any of the three possible types of legal prohibitions against the so-called "dual service" by a public officer or employee that have been identified by the Arkansas Supreme Court: constitutional prohibitions, statutory prohibitions, and, if no constitutional or statutory prohibition applies, the common law prohibition known as the "doctrine of incompatibility." See generally Byrd v. State , 240 Ark. 743 , 4	2	32
Thompson v. Robertsgreen ark · 1998 · cited in 14 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2010 2 sentences 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is	2	14
Davis v. Doylegreen ark · 1959 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1993–2009 2 sentences 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is	1	2
Gryzik v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Accord Gryzik v. State , 380 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1980) (echoing the incompatibility doctrine's application based on the duties under the "established governmental scheme."); Citizens Ass'n v. District of Col.	1	1
Tappan v. Helena Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen ark · 1937 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See Tappan v. Helena Federal Savings Loan Assoc., 193 Ark. 1023 , 104 S.W.2d 458 (1937). 1994See Tappan v. Helena Federal Savings Loan Assoc., 193 Ark. 1023 , 104 S.W.2d 458 (1937).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
State ex rel. Murphy v. Townsend green ark · 1904 2 sentences 2010The Arkansas Supreme Court has described the incompatibility doctrine as applying in situations in which "the discharge of the duties of the one [position] conflict[s] with the duties of the other, to the detriment of the public good." State ex rel Murphy v. Townsend , 72 Ark. 180 (1904). 2004Murphy v. Townsend, 72 Ark. 180 (1904), or where "one [office] is subordinate to the other, and subject in some degree to the supervisory power of its incumbent, or where the incumbent of one office has the power to remove the incumbent of the other or to audit the accounts of the other," Tappan v. Helena Fed.	2	2004–2010
Rogers v. Sangster neutral ark · 1930 2 sentences 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is 2009This statute must be read in conjunction with the common-law doctrine of incompatibility, which the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed as follows in Thompson v. Roberts , 333 Ark. 544 , 548 , 970 S.W.2d 239 (1998): In Rogers v. Sangster , 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. Doyle , 230 Ark. 421 , 323 S.W.2d 202 (1959), this court described the common-law rule of incompatibility as follows: Page 4 At common law, and generally under statutory enactment, it is now established beyond question that a contract made by an officer of a municipality with himself, or in which he is	1	2009–2009
Toney v. Haskins green arkctapp · 1983 1 sentence 2002Toney v. Haskins, 7 Ark.	1	2002–2002

Where else courts name it

AR 42 (1993–2010) TX 25 (1982–2026) IL 7 (1987–2019) NJ 5 (1963–2010) CA 4 (1984–2024) OR 3 (1990–2003) FL 3 (1986–2001) WI 2 (1984–1989) NC 2 (2021–2021) PA 2 (1974–2016) KS 2 (1997–2000)

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