Court Opinion

ID: 9771303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:38:48.568412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:28.291756
License: Public Domain

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice, dissenting. I join my colleague Justice Hickman in his dissent and note with approval the conclusions of Special Justice Richard F. Hatfield in his dissenting opinion in Bishop v. Linkway Stores, Inc., 280 Ark. 106, 655 S.W.2d 426 (1983), when he observed that the majority erred in its interpretation of Amendment 60 in two respects: 1. It fails to properly consider the entire document and give meaning to each word by concentrating on the wording of Section 13(a)(i), and, 2. It views Amendment 60 too strictly and, in a sense, in a vacuum. Since it finds no ambiguity in the document, it does not consider the history of the times and voters’ intent in passing Amendment 60. Furthermore, their construction does not, in my judgment, follow the plain meaning of Amendment 60 when this history is examined. I think the majority was wrong in Bishop, when it declared that the language used in Amendment 60 is clear and unambiguous, and is wrong again now. Since the majority finds that Bishop is established precedent that the meaning of the Amendment is plain, that there is no ambiguity, and that there is no need to resort to rules of construction or to extrinsic evidence, it has closed the door on Amendment 60. For me to labor over rules of construction or to editorialize as to the admissibility of the extrinsic evidence offered by appellant in this case would be wasted effort and of little, if any, value. I dissent. Hays, J., joins in this opinion.