City of Harrison v. Braswell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Dissent 1
The majority holding is revolutionary! The reasons for my dissenting opinion:
1. The rule has always prevailed in Arkansas that a municipality possesses and can exercise only such powers as are granted in express words, or such powers as are necessarily implied from or incident to the powers expressly conferred, or such powers as are essential to the accomplishment of the declared objectives and purposes of the municipality. Bennett v. City of Hope,204 Ark. 147, 161 S.W.2d 186; McGehee v. Williams,191 Ark. 643, 87 S.W.2d 46; Cumnock v. Little Rock, 154 Ark. 471,243 S.W. 57, 25 A.L.R. 608;…
Also in this document: Dissent · Smith.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Willis v. City of Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- City of Argenta v. KeathSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Cumnock v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Bennett v. City of HopeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.