Court Opinion

ID: 9774427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:20:02.838247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:08.279449
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, dissenting. I would deny the rehearing. I adhere to the original opinion. Even a partial overruling of Reed v. Johnson, 200 Ark. 1075, 143 S.W. 2d 32 is not justified. It construed a statute and, if its holding is not literally a rule of property, it is in nature and effect. Furthermore, the overruling or limitation of Reed is based in substantial part upon Ark. Stat. Ann. § 62-2117 (Repl. 1971). Neither the application of that statute nor its effect on the statutes (which were involved, and relied upon by the parties and this court) was an issue, either here or in the trial court. It was not mentioned until the petition for rehearing was filed. To quote from appellant’s brief, on rehearing: Heretofore, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 62-2117 (1971 Repl.) has been overlooked. Also, The Appellees herein admittedly have not previously called to this honorable Court’s attention the arguments contained herein, the various distinctions between Reed and ,the case at bar, and the differences in the applicable statutory requirements. Since this is the case, the question raised by petition for rehearing is not to be considered, and the rehearing is improperly granted. Burke v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 72 Ark. 256, 51 S.W. 458; Driver v. Garey, 143 Ark. 112, 220 S.W. 667; Burks Motors, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., 250 Ark. 641, 466 S.W. 2d 943; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Coffelt, 257 Ark. 770, 522 S.W. 2d 839; Berry v. Gordon, 237 Ark. 547, 865, 376 S.W. 2d 279, 289; Bost v. Masters, 235 Ark. 393, 361 S.W. 2d 272, 277; Midland Valley Rd. Co. v. LeMoyne, 104 Ark. 327, 148 S.W. 654; Chronister v. Skidmore, 198 Ark. 261, 129 S.W. 2d 608; Vincennes Steel Corp. v. Derryberry, 194 Ark. 37, 106 S.W. 2d 571. The rule against raising new issues on a petition for rehearing should have particular impact in a case of this sort. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice George Rose Smith joins in this opinion.