Wood v. Henderson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Ed. F. MoFaddin, Justice.
The question presented is whether Act 115 of 1955 applies to a suburban improvement district organized under the provisions of § 20-701, et seq., Ark. Stats. In considering the posed issue, we leave open any and all questions regarding the constitutionality of the Act 115. Constitutional questions are never decided unless necessary. Porter v. Waterman, 77 Ark. 383, 91 S. W. 754; Honea v. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis, 187 Ark. 619, 61 S. W. 2d 436; and Winston v. Personal Finance, 220 Ark. 580, 249 S. W. 2d 315.
The appellants are the Commissioners of Highway 67 Water…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Shibley v. Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Winston v. Personal Finance Co. of Pine Bluff, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Altheimer v. Board of Directors of Plum Bayou Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Porter v. WatermanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Honea v. Federal Land Bank of St. LouisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rainwater v. HaynesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Quapaw Central Business Improvement District v. Bond-Kinman, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Little Rock Road MacHinery Co. v. Jackson CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Little Rock Road MacHinery Co. v. Jackson CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.