City of Fort Smith v. O'Loughlin

The chancellor correctly determined that these bonds were to be repaid entirely from funds derived from the convention center/hotel, however, he also held that no public purpose would be served by the facility and the majority has impliedly endorsed that position, which prompts these comments.

In order to affirm the chancellor’s ruling with respect to the public purpose issue, our cases require a finding that the legislative branch acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Purvis v. Hubbell, Mayor, 273 Ark. 330, 620 S.W.2d 282 (1981); Miles v. Gordon, 234 Ark. 525, 353 S.W.2d 157 (1962); Kerr v.…