Paving District No. 36 v. Little
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellées, who were the plaintiffs below, owned real property within the limits of Paving District No. 36 in the city of Port Smith, and they brought this suit to cancel the ordinance of that city whereby the district was created.
Two questions are presented by this appeal. The first is whether the amendment voted on at the election in 1920 as Amendment No. 13 applies to municipal ordinances creating improvement. districts in cities and towns; and the second, whether the improvement district here in question was void because the cost of the proposed improvement exceeded the betterments…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brickhouse v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Fitzgerald v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- McDonnell v. Improvement District No. 145Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Board of Improvement of Sewer Improvement District No. 1 v. PollardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Morrilton Waterworks Improvement District v. EarlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burks v. City of LafayetteSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
- Schaer v. Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Carpenter v. City of ParagouldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1988
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1998