Court Opinion

ID: 9667060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:12.421214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.535820
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice (Concurring). I have always thought that the Court was in error in its decision in the ease of. Gazette Publishing Co. v. Brady, 204 Ark. 396, 162 S. W. 2d 494; and I am still of that opinion. Nevertheless I am unwilling to overrule that case at this time because of the reasons herein mentioned. The first reason is that Gazette v. Brady, was decided in 1942; and the Arkansas Legislature has met several times since that year, and has never amended the corporation statute to overcome the holding in Gazette v. Brady. The correct way to have the law changed is by act of the Legislature, rather than by judicial overruling of previous opinions. This matter was discussed in some detail in my dissenting opinion in Ebrite v. Brookhyser, ante, p. 676, 244 S. W. 2d 625. In the case at bar, there is not involved a “rule of property,” as was involved in Ebrite v. Broohhyser; but even in the absence of a “rule of property,” decisions should not be lightly overruled. The second reason is that we have never indicated, in any opinion until now, that there was any error in Gazette v. Brady; and I maintain that the lawyers and laymen of the State are entitled to some notice or caveat by the Court before it embarks on a career of overruling previous opinions. There is no need to engage in a discussion of the stare decisis rule and the arguments for and against it. Those interested will find lengthy discussions and many cases cited in 15 C. J. 915 et seq.; 21 C. J. S. 297 et seq.; and 14 Am. Jur. 283 et seq.1 One side will always argue that unless erroneous holdings are corrected, then wrong becomes perpetuated. The other side will always argue that unless previous holdings are followed, no protection is afforded by decided cases. These same arguments were made in the case at bar. As a way out of the difficulty posed by the aforesaid arguments, at least three courses have been suggested by law book writers: the first course is by Legislative Action. That is the ideal and best way for the law to be clarified because such legislation operates only prospectively. The second course is by Overruling with Future Effect Only.- This method is discussed in the Annotation in 85 A. L. R. 262, entitled, “Right of Court in Overruling Earlier Precedent to Apply New Rule Prospectively and Adhere to Old One as Regards Past Transactions. The defect with this second course is that it affords the successful litigant no relief. The third course out of the difficulty is for the Court to overrule a case only after having given notice or caveat that such course was in contemplation. Certainly this third course is far less harmful than overruling a prior case without previous notice. As an example of giving notice that former holdings were to be questioned on their merits, I call attention to the ease of Cassen v. Cassen, 211 Ark. 582, 201 S. W. 2d 585. In that case we overruled the earlier case of Squire v. Squire, 186 Ark. 511, 54 S. W. 2d 281. But in Cassen v. Cassen, we pointed out a series of cases in which we had repeatedly stated that the case of Squire v. Squire should be modified, was a questionable decision, and was under reconsideration. So when we finally overruled Squire v. Squire, lawyers and litigants generally had been put on notice that such a step was in contemplation and they could have regulated their conduct and litigation in the light of such judicial caveat. We have never, until now, indicated any intention to re-examine the holding in Gazette v. Brady, so I think we should follow it until this notice is given. Even though the holding is not a “rule of property,” nevertheless it should not be overruled without previous notice.   Justice Cardoza, in “The Nature of the Judicial Process,” says: “Stare decisis is at least the everyday working rule of our law.”