Legal Opinion

Moyer v. Altheimer

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 23, 1925PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.

Appellees are the commissioners of a road improvement district in Pulaski County, designated .as Little Rock-Levy ■ and Park Hill Paving District No. 4, created by special act of the General Assembly, and they instituted this action in the circuit court of Pulaski County to compel 'appellant, the county court, by peremptory mandamus, to apportion to said improvement district its alleged share of road funds prescribed by statute. ' They alleged in their petition for mandamus that, they had filed an application, or petition, with the county .judge asking for a distribution of funds, and that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Road Improvement District No. 1 v. GloverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  2. Sanderson v. TexarkanaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  3. Rolfe v. Spybuck Drainage District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Texarkana v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  5. City of El Dorado v. Union CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Jeffery, County Judge v. TrevathanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  2. Newton v. AltheimerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  3. Morehart v. Mabelvale Road Improvement District No. 29Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  4. Moffett v. Texarkana Forest Park Paving, Sewer & Water District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  5. Newton v. AltheimerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

3 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