Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hartwick v. Thorne

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 16, 1990No. 89-109Published

1DissentDavid Newbern, Justice

The general purpose of the bond issue stated in the ballot title was “street improvements,” followed by some parenthetically stated specific projects including the ill-fated canal from Faulkner Lake to the Arkansas River. The issue presented is whether the city council can use the money raised by the bond issue for the general purpose stated in the ballot title when one of the specific purposes has been determined infeasible.

Although the court’s opinion quotes the chancellor’s statement that the voters were “misled” by the ballot title, the opinion makes it clear that there was no fraud. I…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Coggins v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Rhodes v. City of StuttgartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  3. Krieg v. City of SpringfieldOhio Court of Appeals · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API