Opinion

Priest v. United Parcel Service

  • 58 Ark. App. 282
  • 950 S.W.2d 476
  • 1997 Ark. App. LEXIS 618
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Sep 17, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Pittman
On the bench
Arey, Crabtree, III, Pittman
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.2%

The opinion

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge, concurring. I agree with the Court’s decision to reverse and remand for the Commission to make adequate findings of fact. I write separately to note that the guidance provided to the Commission on remand is mere dicta which binds neither the Commission on remand nor this court in a subsequent appeal. While the general citations of law relating to due process in the majority opinion may be correct, it does not follow that they are apropos in the case at bar, or that the parties and the Commission will find them to be helpful. It must be remembered that the facts of this case have yet to be determined and, as Mr. Justice Jackson stated in Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 132 (1944):

It is timely again to remind counsel that words of our opinions are to be read in the light of the facts of the case under discussion. To keep opinions within reasonable bounds precludes writing into them every limitation or variation which might be suggested by the circumstances of cases not before the Court. General expressions transposed to other facts are often misleading.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.