Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ark. State Hwy. Comm. v. Sub-Dist. No. 3

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 3, 1964No. 5-3117Published

1Dissent

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting).

The appellant, Arkansas State Highway Commission (an agency of the State), will sometimes be referred to as “Highway Commission”; and appellee, Sub-District No. 3 of Grassy Lake and Tyronza Drainage District (duly created pursuant to law) will sometimes be referred to as “District.” The brief of the appellant oegins with the following clear statement:

“This case involves the determination .of an important question of law, which has never before reached this Court. The outcome will directly affect the acquisition of a majority of the right of way…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adaman Mutual Water Company, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  2. Lumsden v. ErstineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  3. Board of Improvement v. School DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
  4. Exchange Trust Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 7, Poinsett Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  5. Bacon v. Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923

6 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