Legal Opinion
Stevens v. Shull
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided November 12, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). ¡Section 5666 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, providing for the payment ¡and collection of assessments in municipal improvement districts, contains the following:
“Provided, no single improvement shall be undertaken which alone will exceed in cost twenty per centum of the value of the real property in such district as shown by the last county assessment.”
The words “last county assessment” were construed by this court in Board of Improvement v. Offenhauser, 84 Ark. 257, 105 S. W. 265, and in Watson v. Boydstun, 141 Ark. 184, 216 S. W. 721, to mean the last…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Board of Improvement District No. 5 v. OffenhauserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Improvement District No. 1 v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Watson v. BoydstunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stevens v. ShullSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Forrest City Grocer Co. v. CatlinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Fisher v. Texarkana Forest Park Paving District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2000