Legal Opinion

Holt v. Texarkana

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 11, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover damages against the city of Texarkana for injuries alleged to have been sustained in consequence of the want of proper repairs to a viaduct of the -city. The complaint alleges that it was the duty of the city to keep the viaduct in proper repair, and that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused because the viaduct was out of repair and dangerous for travel.

In this State it is the settled law that there is no common-law liability resting upon quasi corporations, such as counties and municipalities, to repair…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  2. Wood v. Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  3. Jones v. Sewer Improvement District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
  4. Board of Improvement of Sewer District Number 2 v. MorelandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  5. Gregg v. HatcherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cabbiness v. City of North Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
  2. City of Little Rock v. LinnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  3. Handley v. City of Hope, ArkansasDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API