# Goodall v. Williams

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 8, 1980 · 271 Ark. 354

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660263

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Lee GOODALL v. Robert Hays WILLIAMS, Judge
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 8, 1980
- **Citations:** 271 Ark. 354; 609 S.W.2d 25; 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1705
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stroud
- **Judges:** Mays, Purtle, Stroud
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660263

## Opinion text

John F. Stroud, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I cannot agree that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 48-311 (E) (Repl. 1977) is unconstitutional. By trying the case de novo, the circuit court is required to determine a question of “public convenience and advantage,” but I find this no more of an executive decision that is required of the circuit court and this court in many other statutorily authorized de novo appeals and de novo reviews of decisions of administrative boards and commissions.
This court made perfectly clear in Byrd v. Jones, 263 Ark. 406 , 565 S.W. 2d 531 (1978), that there are two methods of appealing from a decision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, and that the choice rests with the appellant. That opinion pointed out that the distinction between the two methods “is more than a mere matter of procedure.” The court acknowledged that the appellant there chose to seek an immediate decision by an appeal de novo under the Thorn Liquor Law rather than utilize the protracted procedure of seeking a review of the Commission’s findings under the Administrative Procedures Act. I think the time element differential sufficiently justifies the two appellate alternatives, but that should be a decision of the General Assembly and not of this court. I would deny the petition for Writ of Prohibition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660263. Public record. Not legal advice.