# Hartwick v. Thorne

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 16, 1990 · 300 Ark. 502

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768867

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry C. HARTWICK, Et Al. v. Mary THORNE, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 16, 1990
- **Citations:** 300 Ark. 502; 780 S.W.2d 531; 1990 Ark. LEXIS 789
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Dudley
- **Judges:** Purtle, Dudley, Hays, Newbern
- **Cited by:** 42 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/9768867

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[a]n illegal exaction is an act that is not authorized or which is contrary to law." Id. at 505

## Opinion text

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
Robert H. Dudley, Justice. We deny the petition for rehearing, but write to supplement the original opinion on one issue.
The original opinion states that we do not consider a statute passed during the pendency of an appeal. That statement is in error. In fact, we have recently considered two (2) acts passed after the trial court ruled. Treiber v. Hess, 301 Ark. 97 , 782 S.W.2d 43 (1990); Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7, 300 Ark. 513 , 780 S.W.2d 539 (1989). We have long done so. Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co., 107 Ark. 292 , 155 S.W. 110 (1913). However, “the legislature cannot, by enactment of a retrospective statute, exercise a power in its nature clearly judicial.” Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, 265 Ark. 187, 196 , 578 S.W.2d 1 (1979). It is prohibited from doing so by the separation of powers doctrine. Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, supra. Thus, even if we construed the act in this case to be retroactive, we would not allow it to retroactively annul a court decision.
Rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768867. Public record. Not legal advice.