Legal Opinion

Boillot v. Ratliff

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 29, 1984No. 84-70PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The issue is whether the appellant gave the notice required in order to contest the annexation of property to the Town of Beaver. The circuit court held that notice was not given. We affirm. Jurisdiction is in this court under Rule 29 (1 )(c) as the case requires construction of acts of the General Assembly.

Arkansas statutes provide for two principal methods of annexation. One method provides that a majority of the residents and property owners may initiate an annexation proceeding. See Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 19-301 through 19-306 (Repl. 1980); Call v. Wharton, 204 Ark.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tucker v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Call v. WhartonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
  3. A. O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. v. BurnsideSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  4. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. HoltSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  5. Barnwell v. GravetteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Dover v. City of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  2. Weiss v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  3. Town of Houston v. CardenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  4. Britton v. City of ConwayCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1991
  5. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1997

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

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

Powered by the Exa API