Purvis v. City of Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Concurrence
Darrell Hickman, Justice,
concurring (substituted concurrence). I agree with the majority opinion, which is to hold, among other things, that so-called revenue bonds issued pursuant to Act 380 and Act 9 are illegal unless approved by the voters. But I would go further than the majority and hold that “revenue” bonds by any name or certificates of indebtedness, whether pursuant to Act 9 or Act 380 or any other provision, are unconstitutional unless the bond issue is approved by the voters, because that is what the constitution requires.
First, we should examine what the City of Little Rock did in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- McArthur v. SmallwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Wayland v. SnappSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Clubb v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
- Jernigan v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.