Mullins v. City of Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court.; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The act violates Art. 19, § 27, Constitution of Arkansas.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court.; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The act violates Art. 19, § 27, Constitution of Arkansas. The Legislature can not authorize the organization of a district in a city to make an improvement outside of the city. 50 Ark. 116,125; Kirby’s Digest, § 5674; 103 Ark. 269; 67 Ark. 30, 37, 39; 246 111. 43, etc. . 2. The bridge is not a local improvement, therefore special assessments can not be levied because contrary to § 5, art. 16, Constitution. 9 Heisk. 349; 24 Am. Rep. 308, 34 L. R. A. 725; 149 111. 310, 24 L. R. A. 412; 92 N. E. 586; 102 111. App. 18; 22…
1DissentHart, J.
Mr. Justice Wood and myself are of the opinion that the forming of a local improvement district within the city for the purpose of constructing a bridge without the city limits is in plain violation of our Constitution.
Article 19, section 27, of our Constitution reads as follows:
“Section 27. Nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prohibit the General Assembly from authorizing assessments on real property for local improvements in towns and cities under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, to be based upon the consent of a majority in value of the property holders…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crane v. Siloam SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- City of Waukegan v. DeWolfIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
- Loeffler v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
- Hundley & Rees v. Commissioners of Lincoln ParkIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Mullins v. City of Little BookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.