# Goodwin v. Harrison

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · November 27, 1989 · 300 Ark. 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768852

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary Helen Bass GOODWIN and William Carl Goodwin, Jr. v. William HARRISON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 27, 1989
- **Citations:** 300 Ark. 474; 780 S.W.2d 518; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 536
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hickman
- **Judges:** Dudley, Hickman, Glaze, Purtle, Newbern
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9768852

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that appellant’s actions were consistent with an |i:iimplied agreement between the parties that depositions would not be used as evidence at trial; thus, appellant had waived the literal wording of Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)
- finding that a case had not been expressly or implicitly overruled because, despite an intervening and apparently contradictory decision, the court thereafter cited the earlier case with approval and followed its holding

## Opinion text

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result but write to say that I doubt we can distinguish the cases of Belford v. Taylor, 241 Ark. 220 , 406 S.W.2d 868 (1966), and Twin City Coach Co. v. Stewart, 209 Ark. 310 , 190 S.W.2d 629 (1945). Both cases effectively interpret the residence requirement for venue to mean “domicile.” That is an incorrect interpretation of the law according to Norton v. Parkins, 203 Ark. 586 , 157 S.W.2d 765 (1942). While Belford was a writ of prohibition case, it was decided on the basis of its facts, relying on the Stewart case. We ought not leave the Stewart and Belford cases in the backwater of the law. We should overrule them expressly, which we are doing by implication in this case.
Glaze, J., joins the concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768852. Public record. Not legal advice.