Legal Opinion

Smith v. Cole

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 22, 1933No. 4-3089PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). There, are two questions presented on these appeals for adjudication, namely:

First, is § 2 of act 250 of 1933 general in its application or special and local? Secondly, if local and special in its application, then is it administrative in effect!

A provision of § 2 of act 250 reads as follows:

“The county judge and the sheriff, county clerk, circuit clerk, treasurer and assessor and their respective deputies shall receive the respective compensations as now fixed by the Initiative Act for Union County, as adopted at the general election for the year…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Webb v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  2. State ex rel. Collman v. PittsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  3. Harwood v. WentworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  4. Waterman v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  5. Cannon v. MaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Phillips v. RothrockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  2. Hirsch and Schuman v. Dabbs and MivelazSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  3. Tindall v. SearanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  4. Board of Trustees, Univ. of Ark. v. Pulaski CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
  5. Thomas v. Branch, SheriffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

13 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