Legal Opinion

Wells v. St. Imp. Dist. No. 31, N. Little Rock

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 15, 1925Published

1Opinion of the CourtHabt, J.

(after stating the facts). It is the contention of counsel for the plaintiff that, while under the first petition the powers of the commissioners are limited to grading and paving the streets only, still the effect of the second petition is to give them the power, not only to grade and pave the streets, but to construct curbs, gutters and storm sewers.

This court has recognized that the property owners may limit the powers of the commissioners by specifying with particularity the kind of materials to be used and the cost of the improvement. McDonnell v. Imp. Dist. No. 145, Little Rock, 97 Ark.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McDonnell v. Improvement District No. 145Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  2. Bottrell v. HollipeterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  3. Johnson v. HamlenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API