Legal Opinion

Carney v. Walbe

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 12, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The sole contention for reversal of the decree is that the court acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in excluding from the provisions of the ordinance creating the district a certain area, which is specifically described.

At the outset of the discussion it may be stated that, in the construction of our Constitution and statutes relating to the formation of improvement districts in cities and incorporated towns, it has been uniformly decided by this court that the determination by the common council of a city or town as to what real property is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Little Rock v. KatzensteinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
  2. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. BelcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
  3. Lenon v. BrodieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  4. Paving Dists. 2 and 3 of Blytheville v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  5. Little Rock v. BoulliounSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Turner v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  2. Davidson v. Sewer Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  3. Ingram v. Board of Commissioners of Street Improvement District No. 5Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  4. Maumelle Boulevard Water & Sewer District No. 1 v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  5. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API