Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hood v. Central Business Improvement District No. 1

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 18, 1989No. 89-290Published

1ConcurrenceJohn I. Purtle, Justice

I concur for the purpose of stating that, in my opinion, many of the signatures on the petition were improper and inadequate. I would hate to see the same mistake occur again and the case reversed when simple precautions can prevent such a waste of time.

In matters relating to the formation of improvement districts requiring the signature of the majority of the property owners, this court has spoken many times, with clarity, on the right of one person to sign for another or on behalf of a corporation. In Ahern v. Board of Improvement Dist.No. 3 of Texarkana, 69 Ark. 68, 61 S.W. 575 (1901),…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ahern v. Board of Improvement District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
  2. Smith v. Improvement District No. 14Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  3. Fry v. PoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  4. Gardner v. BullardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API