Legal Opinion

Morehart v. Mabelvale Road Improvement District No. 29

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 5, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The road improvement district in question was organized under the provisions of act 126 of Acts of 1923. General Acts of 1923, p. 84. No complaint is made that the improvement district, was not legally formed under the provisions of the act or that the commissioners are not carrying on the construction of the improvement in the manner provided by the act.

The sole ground of attack is that the act under which the improvement district is formed is unconstitutional. The act under consideration has been upheld in the following cases: Moyer v. Altheimer, 168…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cribbs v. BenedictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
  2. Snetzer v. GreggSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  3. Easley v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  4. Dickerson v. Tri-County Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
  2. Rodgers v. Mabelvale Extension Road Improvement Dist. No. 5Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
  3. Moffett v. Texarkana Forest Park Paving, Sewer & Water District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API