Legal Opinion

Lewis v. Forrest City Special Improvement District

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 8, 1923PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.

It appears that there have been organized in the city of Forrest City three local improvement districts under general statutes (Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 5647 et seq.), designated, respectively, as Forrest City Improvement District No. 1, Improvement District No. 2 of Forrest City, and Improvement District No. 3 of Forrest City, for the purpose of constructing a waterworks plant, an electric light plant, and a sewer system within the territory of the respective districts, and, after the completion of the improvements, they were taken over, for operation, by the city council. The city has…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Winer v. Bank of BlythevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  2. City of Malvern v. NunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  3. Carrier v. ComstockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  4. Estes v. German National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  5. Stiewel v. Webb Press Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. City of Paris v. Street Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  2. Mahan v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  3. Little Rock v. BoulliounSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  4. Lipscomb v. BlanzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  5. Black v. Street Improvement Dist. No. 2District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1941

3 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