Magruder v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
David Newbern, Justice.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the appellee, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, acted unconstitutionally by declaring Lake Maumelle to be a “zone,” as that term is used in Ark. Const, art. 35, § 8, for the purpose of regulating fishing in the lake. We disagree with the chancellor’s conclusion to the extent he said that the commission could regulate the lake as it pleased because its authority was derived from its contract with the Little Rock Waterworks pursuant to which the commission managed the lake. However, we affirm the result and hold that it…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- W. R. Wrape Stave Co. v. Arkansas State Game & Fish CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Hampton v. Arkansas State Game & Fish CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- State Ex Rel. Wright v. CaseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Arkansas State Game & Fish Commission v. StanleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- State Game & Fish Commission v. HornadaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commission on Judicial Discipline & Disability v. DigbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- COM'N ON JUD. DISC. & DISABILITY v. DigbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- James Peveto v. State of Arkansas; Arkansas Game and Fish Commission; And Pat Fitts, as Director of the Arkansas Game and Fish CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2021
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2010
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2010