Holmes v. City of Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentJohn I. Purtle, Justice
I must again respectfully dissent. The majority set out the correct law concerning annexations of adjacent territory by cities then promptly forgot what it said and wrote a nice sounding piece of social legislation. The law establishes five criteria, one of which must be met before land is annexed. These five classifications provide that land may be annexed if: (1) it is platted or held for sale or use as municipal lots; (2) whether platted or not, the land is held to be sold as suburban property; (3) the land furnishes the abode for a densely settled community, or represents the actual…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Vestal v. Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- City of Piggott v. EblenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
- City of Little Rock v. FindleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- Parrish v. City of RussellvilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- Saunders v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.