Legal Opinion

Selz v. Paving District No. 1 of McGehee

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 21, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hast, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). This court has held that the foundation of the improvement is the petition of ten owners of real property situated in the proposed district, and that the provisions of the statute are mandatory and jurisdictional. Board of Improvement District No. 60 v. Cotter, 71 Ark. 556, 76 S. W. 552; Kraft v. Smothers, 103 Ark. 269, 146 S. W. 505; Smith v. Imp. Dist. No. 14 of Texarkana, 108 Ark. 141, 156 S. W. 455, 44 L. R. A. N. S. 696; and Bell v. Phillips, 116 Ark. 167, 172 S. W. 864.

Under the averments of the answer, which are admitted by the demurrer, the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kirst v. Street Improvement District No. 120Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  2. Crane v. Siloam SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
  3. Little Rock v. KatzensteinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
  4. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. BelcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
  5. Bell v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Thacker v. Paving Improvement District No. 5Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  2. Simmons v. FessendenSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
  3. American State Bank, Charleston v. Street Imp. Dist. No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  4. Refunding Board of Ark. v. State Hwy Audit Comm'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API