Fry v. Poe
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). Hnder §27, art. 19, of our Constitution, a municipal corporation cannot construct a local improvement by assessment of benefits on real property until and unless a majority in value of the owners of real property within the proposed district have consented thereto. We have many times held that this section of the Constitution is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that no improvement districts can be established within the limits of a municipal corporation without complying with its provisions.
In the case at bar the chancellor, in determining whether or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Co. v. Waterworks Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Craig v. Russellville Waterworks Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- City of Malvern v. NunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Improvement District No. 1 v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Walton v. Commissioners of Light Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rainwater v. HaynesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Brown v. HeadleeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- Hood v. Central Business Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2010
- Snoddy v. Paving Improvement District No. 4 of MonticelloSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928