Little Rock v. Katzenstein
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The constitutional provision is not intended to apply to-owners of abutting lots only. Const. Ark., Art. ip., sec. 27,-Little Rock v. Board of Improvements, ‡2 Ark., 133. The obvious intention is to fix the liability on the property to be affected or benefited.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The constitutional provision is not intended to apply to-owners of abutting lots only. Const. Ark., Art. ip., sec. 27,-Little Rock v. Board of Improvements, ‡2 Ark., 133. The obvious intention is to fix the liability on the property to be affected or benefited. McDermott v. Matthis, 21 Ark., 6o-. A corner lot is an abutting lot on both streets and pays-double taxes even under the abutting system; that is, a tax on each street. Springfield v. Greene, 11 N. E. R., 262. It is certainly more just that the whole quarter of the block…
1Opinion of the CourtSandels, J.
Section 27 of article 19, of the Constitution-of Arkansas, is as follows :
“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 owning property adjoining the locality to be affected but such assessments shall be ad volorem and uniform.”
Section 826 Mansfield’s Digest, laws of Arkansas, is as follows : “ Section 826. When any ten resident owners…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rogers v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- State ex rel. Cunningham v. District Court of Ramsey CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Shepherd v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- State ex rel. Cunningham v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Carpenter v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Crane v. Siloam SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Board of Improvement of Sewer District Number 2 v. MorelandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- McKEE v. HASLERIndiana Supreme Court · 1951
- Board of Improvement District No. 5 v. OffenhauserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- City of Independence v. GatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.