Omni Holding & Development Corp. v. C.A.G. Investments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that precedents on this issue created prior to 1999 are no longer controlling because they are not based on the amended version of § 26-54-112
• affirming the trial court’s order quieting title in the disputed property to C.A.G. and holding that Omni did not have standing because it was not a party to either deed conveying the property
• finding no clear error in trial court’s conclusion that former lessee abandoned personal property left in building when lessee traveled to Greece instead of retrieving property within one-week time period given by court
• “Thus, C.A.G. was not ‘transacting business’ in Arkansas and its failure to obtain a certificate of authority did not prevent C.A.G. from filing suit in the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).