Legal Opinion
Selz v. McGehee East & West Highway District
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided June 14, 1926PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The reassessment of benefits attacked in this case was made by the commissioners pursuant to an act amending §§ 2 and 10 of the original act creating the highway district. Acts of 1925, p. 543.
Section 2 of the act of 1925 reads as follows:
“Section 2. That § 10 be amended to read as follows:
“ ‘Section 10. The commissioners may annually order a reassessment of the benefits; and, in that event, such reassessment shall be filed, advertised, and equalized as in the case of the first assessment; provided, the commissioners, both in making original assessment and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Road Improvement Districts 1, 2 & 3 v. CrarySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Bulloch v. Dermott-Collins Road Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Watson v. BoydstunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lessenberry v. Little Rock-Pulaski Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1947