Legal Opinion

Keith v. Barrow-Hicks Extensions of Water Improvement District No. 85

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 25, 1982No. 81-178PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

Appellees, sixteen improvement districts comprised of drainage districts, municipal improvement districts and suburban improvement districts, sought a declaratory judgment, a mandatory injunction and damages against appellants, the collector and treasurer of Pulaski County, for withholding ten percent of the combined assessment and penalty or fee on delinquent property located within the various districts. One of the prayers for relief asked for a judgment of $6,649.81, the amount allegedly wrongfully withheld from May 1, 1975 until the date of filing the complaint,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Henderson v. RussellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
  3. Wiseman v. Arkansas Utilities CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
  4. Ark. State Highway Comm. v. KesnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
  5. Henslee v. KennedySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Virginia Real Estate Board v. ClayCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1989
  2. Riddick v. StreettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  3. Crittenden County v. WillifordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  4. Simmons First National Bank v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  5. Neeve v. City of Caddo ValleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002

21 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