{
  "id": 1715351,
  "name": "MARION COUNTY RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 v. George F. POLK et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marion County Rural School District No. 1 v. Polk",
  "decision_date": "1980-04-14",
  "docket_number": "80-40",
  "first_page": "354",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 354"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "596 S.W.2d 700"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "204 Ark. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1444092
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/204/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678971
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0016-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3203,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.9,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5205201152654073
    },
    "sha256": "dc641dd3c581ff3e0ef387913cb0d93676e9a4d7dfc2b3b1e949442d2acc337f",
    "simhash": "1:fd0cd1b625107e74",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARION COUNTY RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 v. George F. POLK et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice:\nThe Lead Hill School District No. 4 of Boone County has included since 1929 some land situated in the adjoining Marion County Rural School District No. 1, the appellant. This action resulted when the Marion County Tax assessor changed the assessment of these lands from the appellees\u2019 district to the appellant school district. The appellees, the Board of Directors of the Lead Hill School District and other interested parties, sought a determinations as to whether the land in question was properly a part of the Lead Hill School District. They also asked for a writ of mandamus ordering the Marion County assessor to assess the land in the Lead Hill School District. The court granted appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment. The appellant\u2019s sole contention for reversal is that the court erred because Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 80-426 (Repl. 1960) (Initiated Act 1 of 1948) limits school districts created by the act to territory within a single county.\n\u00a7 80-426 provides in pertinent part:\nOn June 1, 1949, there is hereby created in each county a new school district which shall be composed of the territory of all school districts administered in the county which had less than 350 enumerated on March 1, 1949, as reflected by the 1948 school enumeration.\nA summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ark. Stat. Ann. Vol. 3A, Rules of Civ. Pro., Rule 56(c) (Repl. 1979). Here the verified motion for summary judgment, affidavit and exhibits reflect these uncontroverted facts: (1) the land in question was part of the Lead Hill School District on and prior to June 1, 1949; (2) the district had less than 350 (school children) enumerated on March 1, 1949, as reflected by the 1948 school enumeration; (3) the land was administered in the Boone County School District on and prior to June 1, 1949; and (4) the land was included within the Boone County School District by a 1949 order of the Boone County School Board pursuant to the terms of the recited School District Reorganization Act.\nIt appears the only issue presented is a matter of law; i.e., the interpretation of the statute. Appellant points out that the act provides \u201cthe territory . . . administered in the county ...\u201d The thrust of its argument is that the words \u201cin the county\u201d are words of \u201climitation.\u201d We have often held that the words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. City of North Little Rock v. Montgomery, 261 Ark. 16, 546 S.W. 2d 154 (1977); and Call v. Wharton, 204 Ark. 544, 162 S.W. 2d 916 (1942). It is clear that the legislature, by choosing the phrase \u201cadministered in the county,\u201d intended that school districts, as here, be composed of land or territory of a district adminstered rather than being restricted to an area located within the county. The court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Covington & Younes, by: Donald J. Adams, for appellant.",
      "Logan & Gresham, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARION COUNTY RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 v. George F. POLK et al\n80-40\n596 S.W. 2d 700\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 14, 1980\nAdams, Covington & Younes, by: Donald J. Adams, for appellant.\nLogan & Gresham, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0354-01",
  "first_page_order": 390,
  "last_page_order": 392
}