Legal Opinion · Dissent

Magruder v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 13, 1987No. 87-63Published

1DissentTom Glaze, Justice

This court’s opinion upon rehearing in Shellnut v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Commission, 222 Ark. 25, 258 S.W.2d 570 (1953) would seem to give support to the majority decision. In Shellnut, Justice George Rose Smith noted that Amendment 35 made no attempt to define the word zone, but said:

To say the least, a zone must be of sufficient size to bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which the zone is declared to exist. If, for example, the zoning regulation is intended to further the propagation of deer, the constitution clearly means that the restricted area must be large enough…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Shellnut v. Arkansas State Game & Fish CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  2. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. ClarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API