Legal Opinion
Sharp v. Drainage District No. 7
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided May 5, 1924PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). Counsel for the defendants have attached to their brief what they claim is a map of the proposed drainage district, which shows the location of the levees referred to in the complaint.
Counsel for the plaintiff, in their reply brief, claim that it is the purpose of the district to build a dam across the St. Francis River, from the lower end of one of the proposed levees to the other, and to let out the water • thus impounded by a lock or a gate, which may be closed at will. We cannot consider these matters.
The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCoy v. Board of DirectorsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- City Oil Works v. Helena Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Ferrell v. ElkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Williams v. Memphis, Dallas & Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Jones v. Board of Mississippi Levee Com'rsMississippi Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by17 opinions
- City of Norwood v. SheenOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Wright v. LakeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Keith v. Drainage Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- St. Francis Drainage District v. AustinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Cullins v. WebbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.