Snoddy v. Paving Improvement District No. 4 of Monticello
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). The first ground upon which it is sought to reverse the decree is that the 'ordinance creating the district embraces more than one improvement. In making this contention, counsel point to the fact that it embraces four separate areas of land disconnected, except that the areas are connected or joined together by streets which have already been paved by the commissioners of Paving District No. 2 of Monticello. Under our former decisions the determination of the city council as to the singleness and unity of the proposed improvement, as well as the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Little Rock v. KatzensteinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. BelcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Paving Dists. 2 and 3 of Blytheville v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Lewellyn v. St. Imp. Dist. of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.