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

  1. Road Improvement Districts 1, 2 & 3 v. CrarySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  2. Bulloch v. Dermott-Collins Road Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  3. Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  4. Watson v. BoydstunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lessenberry v. Little Rock-Pulaski Drainage District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API