{
  "id": 1624156,
  "name": "Dorothy BESHARSE v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE, Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Besharse v. City of Blytheville",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-30",
  "docket_number": "73-36",
  "first_page": "382",
  "last_page": "384",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 Ark. 382"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "493 S.W.2d 708"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 S.W. 2d 67",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 Ark. 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1425587
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/189/0747-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.W. 760",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1909,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ark. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1513886
      ],
      "year": 1909,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/90/0010-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 2665,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06132191490700809
    },
    "sha256": "bd75ad004ecc94eafa76b41e1bc9c04ffdf9802c124ddd1ff7788901abb38f97",
    "simhash": "1:9e142247b577d973",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:26:13.512056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dorothy BESHARSE v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE, Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nUpon petition of appellee City of Blytheville, Arkansas, a writ of mandamus was issued directing appellant Dorothy Besharse, the city clerk, to comply with ordinances No. 869 and 870 of the City of Blytheville. For reversal she contends: that the ordinances are illegal, unlawful and without legal effect; that the city had an otherwise adequate remedy; and that in the exercise of its discretion the trial court should have denied the petition for mandamus.\nOne of the ordinances creates the office of \u201cFinance Director\u201d to be in charge of the city\u2019s financial affairs and provided the city\u2019s moneys should be paid out upon the signature of the \u201cFinance Director\u201d and the Mayor. Appellant who had been in charge of the city\u2019s finances was directed by the other ordinances to turn over to the \u201cFinance Director\u201d bank accounts, bookkeeping records, etc., used in connection with such duties.\nWe can find nothing in Sections 3 and 4 of Article 12 of our Constitution that would prohibit the General Assembly from permitting cities and towns to handle their finances as the appellee here proposes to do.\nWe find nothing in ordinances 869 & 870 contrary to the general laws of the state. Appellant relies upon several sections of Act 1 of 1875, as placing the duties of financial management upon the clerk. We do not necessarily agree with appellant\u2019s interpretation thereof but any doubt as to the right of the City of Blytheville to legislate on the matter is removed by Acts 1971, No. 266 which provides:\n\u201cSection 1. Any city of the first class is hereby authorized to perform any function and full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs including but not limited to the power to tax.\u201d\nNeither does appellant have a vested right to prevent the city from changing the duties imposed upon her through its legislative processes. See Hunter State Bank v. Mills, 90 Ark. 10, 117 S.W. 760 (1909).\nAppellant also contends that by virtue of some outstanding bonds the city is prevented from moving the financial affairs from her office. On this issue, we find that she as city clerk has no standing to complain.\nIt thus appearing that the transfer of the funds, books and bookkeeping machinery involved only a ministerial function, the writ of mandamus was properly issued. See Ghent v. State Use School Districts, 189 Ark. 747, 75 S.W. 2d 67 (1934).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jake Brick and Oscar Fendler, for appellant.",
      "Bill Rose and Gardner & Steinsiek, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dorothy BESHARSE v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE, Arkansas\n73-36\n493 S.W. 2d 708\nOpinion delivered April 30, 1973\n[Rehearing denied May 25, 1973.]\nJake Brick and Oscar Fendler, for appellant.\nBill Rose and Gardner & Steinsiek, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0382-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 406
}