# Reddick v. Scott

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · April 10, 1950 · 217 Ark. 38

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683895

## Case

- **Full name:** Reddick v. Scott
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 10, 1950
- **Citations:** 217 Ark. 38; 228 S.W.2d 1008; 1950 Ark. LEXIS 373
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** George Rose Smith
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9683895

## Opinion text

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice, concurring.
The opinion says that “The Issues now remaining hinge upon questions of fact as yet undecided. . . . "Where an administrative body is empowered to make findings of fact it is not the province of the courts to discharge that function merely because the administrative agency lias not acted.” The same issue was presented in Case No. 4-9115, Kimpel, Guardian, v. Garland Anthony Lumber Company, 216 Ark. 788 , 227 S. W. 2d 932 . There the "Workmen’s Compensation Commission, as the majority opinion of this Court points out, had erroneously decided against a claim on a point of law. In the dissenting opinion it was said: “I would therefore give the Commission an opportunity to say whether, under the facts, a case was made.” The majority opinion in the Kimpel case said, “Here the uncontradicted testimony would have established a case of partial dependency if Jethro had been 21 or more.” Now we are saying that where the administrative body is empowered to make findings of fact, “it is not the province of the courts to discharge that function merely because the administrative agency has not acted.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683895. Public record. Not legal advice.