Legal Opinion

Bell v. Fulkerson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 13, 1987No. 86-238PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

John I. Purtle, Justice.

The appellants, who reside in Sewer Improvement District 222 (SID 222), filed suit in chancery court to enjoin the district from issuing bonds without an election. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

For reversal the appellants argue that the court erred in finding: (1) that SID 222’s commissioners and the district did not constitute the state, a city, county, town or other municipality within the meaning of Ark. Const, of 1874, art. 16, § 1 and 2 that this constitutional provision is inapplicable to SID 222 and the bonds…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Hot Springs v. CrevistonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  2. Fitzgerald v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
  3. Eaton v. McCuenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1997
  2. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1994
  3. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1990
  4. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2010
  5. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2000

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

Powered by the Exa API