Legal Opinion
Purvis v. City of Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided March 26, 1984No. 83-184PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
John I. Purtle, Justice.
The Pulaski County Chancery Court declared that the City of Little Rock properly authorized the issuance of $4,000,000 in “tourism bonds” to be used to finance construction of a La Quinta Motor Inn. In the decree the trial court upheld Act 380 of 1971.
On appeal it is urged that Act 380 of 1971 is governed by Amendment 49 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and that it was error for the court not to require Act 380 to be so controlled. Also, it is argued that Act 380, the Tourism Act, did not authorize the issuance of tax free revenue bonds to a private entity…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brickhouse v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Wayland v. SnappSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Jernigan v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Rockefeller v. HogueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Snodgrass v. PocahontasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- City of Hot Springs v. CrevistonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- Murphy v. EpesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Bank of New York v. University Partners, Ltd.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1989
- City of Fort Smith v. O'LoughlinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- City of Hot Springs v. CrevistonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.