Legal Opinion

Cumnock v. Little Rock

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 4, 1925PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.

Proposed amendment No. ll, prohibiting counties, cities and towns from making contracts or allowances in excess of the revenues for the current fiscal year, was declared adopted under the decision of this court in Brickhouse v. Hill, 167 Ark. 513, and it contains a proviso authorizing counties, cities and towns to issue bonds for funds to pay debts outstanding at the time of the adoption of the amendment. The proviso reads as follows:

“Provided, however, to.secure funds to pay indebtedness outstanding at the time of the adoption of this amendment, counties, cities and incorporated towns may…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Willis v. MabonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  2. Brickhouse v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  3. Griffin v. RhotonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  4. Arkansas Tax Commission v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Rockefeller v. HogueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  2. Penton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  3. Matheny v. Independence CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  4. Myhand v. ErwinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
  5. Kelley v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2016

10 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