Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Barling v. Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 6, 2001No. 01-531Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

A NNABELLE Clinton Imber, Justice,

concurring in part; .dissenting in part. I concur with the result reached by the majority because the City of Barling’s attempted annexations of property in Fort Chaffee were void ad initio. FCRA raised the issue of whether Barfing had the power to annex a large portion of Fort Chaffee while it was still a federal enclave. If it did not, then the annexations were void ab initio. The majority holds, as did the trial court below, that the federal government permits a city to annex a portion of a federal enclave. However, the court asked and answered the wrong…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Paul v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund of LouisvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  3. Arlington Hotel Co. v. FantSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  4. Gregg v. HartwickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  5. Arlington Hotel Company v. FantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

3 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