{ "id": 1878601, "name": "Bill POGUE, Individually and as County Judge for Sevier County, Arkansas v. Calvin COOPER, Ray WILLIAMS and Wilma WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "Pogue v. Cooper", "decision_date": "1984-11-19", "docket_number": "84-110", "first_page": "105", "last_page": "108", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "284 Ark. 105" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "679 S.W.2d 207" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "280 Ark. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1744759 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/280/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S.W. 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1887, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723618 ], "year": 1887, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.W. 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ark. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1537539 ], "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/113/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 Ark. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1684799 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/235/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ark. 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1672614 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0008-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 Ark. 1006", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1691670 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/233/1006-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 5129, "ocr_confidence": 0.837, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.4364613535383723 }, "sha256": "c11ba8499830c75f21bc957c98b97b965c66f3acc05b0e8c9f8d739b856074c1", "simhash": "1:fdac943b768fbd30", "word_count": 843 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:32.164820+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bill POGUE, Individually and as County Judge for Sevier County, Arkansas v. Calvin COOPER, Ray WILLIAMS and Wilma WILLIAMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nAppellant, the County Judge of Sevier County, appeals from a chancery court order enjoining him from leasing county property to private interests and from contracting to use county property and employees to perform services for and supply materials to private interests. Appellant contends that the chancellor erred in finding his activities in violation of the Arkansas Constitution and in failing to find that his activities were authorized by Act 183 of 1983. We agree with the chancellor\u2019s findings and affirm.\nThe undisputed evidence at the trial showed that appellant made it a practice both to lease county equipment to private persons and to contract with private persons to provide county equipment, supplies and personnel to perform services in the private sector. The evidence also showed, and the chancellor found, that appellant had charged and received adequate compensation for the use of county property and for the labor of county personnel. The injunction was based on the chancellor\u2019s conclusions that appellant\u2019s activities were in violation of Ark. Const, art. 16, \u00a7 13 and art. 12, \u00a7 5.\nArkansas Const, art. 16, \u00a7 13 reads as follows:\nAny citizen of any county, city or town may institute suit in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever.\nWe considered this question in Needham v. Garner, County Judge, 233 Ark. 1006, 350 S.W.2d (1961). On essentially identical facts, we held that the actions of the county judge were \u201cunlawful official acts which could logically result in illegal exactions.\u201d We reasoned that illegal exactions were likely to occur because such use of county property \u201ccould result in the need for more tax money to repair and replace the road machinery.\u201d This was true even though the county judge\u2019s activities were producing a profit. Arkansas Const, art. 16, \u00a7 13 protects the public interest against such potential illegal exactions to the same degree as against actual and ongoing illegal exactions. We held that the county judge did not have the power to perform private jobs because the Constitution gave the county courts, and not the county judges, exclusive jurisdiction in all matters relating to internal improvements and local concerns of the counties. We specificaly declined to decide whether this grant of jurisdiction to the county courts gave them the power to do the sort of acts in issue in that case and this one.\nWe reached similar results in Maroney v. Universal Leasing Corp., 263 Ark. 8, 562 S.W.2d 77 (1978) and Cunningham v. Stockton, County Judge, 235 Ark. 345, 359 S.W.2d 808 (1962).\nAppellant concedes that Needham, supra, controls this case and requires affirmance if the law on the subj ect has not been changed. Appellant contends that the adoption of Ark. Const, amend. 55, \u00a7 3, after the decision in Needham and the other cases cited, changed the relevant law.\nAmendment 55, \u00a7 3 gives the county judge, among other powers and duties, custody of county property. Before the adoption of Amendment 55, the county court had custody of county property. Ark. Const, art. 7, \u00a7 28; former Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-601 (Repl. 1962); Needham. Appellant argues that \u201ccustody\u201d of the county property includes the power to lease it and contract for its use on private projects.\nAmendment 55 did not change the law on this subject. We recognize that the county court, prior to the adoption of Amendment 55, had the power to lease real county property to private interests. Chamber of Commerce v. Pulaski County, 113 Ark. 439, 168 S.W. 848(1914); State v. Baxter, 50 Ark. 447, 8 S.W. 188 (1887). However, the letting of the county\u2019s personal property is a qualitatively different matter. Personal property is much more likely to be depleted or destroyed than real property, and thus an illegal exaction is much more likely to occur.\nAppellant also argues that Act 183 of 1983 authorizes his actions. We cannot agree. Act 183 was enacted in implementation of Amendment 55. The Act, section one of which is codified at Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 17-3901 (Supp. 1983), states that the county judge has \u201cthe right to assign or not assign use of [county] property . . .\u2019\u2019The chancellor held the Act does not purport to amend the Constitution or remove its prohibition against appellant\u2019s actions. This ruling was correct. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. A clear incompatibility between a statute and the Constitution must be shown before the statute will be held unconstitutional. Gay v. Rab\u00f3n, 280 Ark. 5, 652 S.W.2d 836 (1983). The chancellor was correct in finding that the Act does not purport to legitimize the actions in question here.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James F. Lane and John B. Hainen, for appellant.", "Smith, Stroud, McClerkin, Dunn and Nutter, by: Winford L. Dunn, Jr. and R. Bruce Lorenzen, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bill POGUE, Individually and as County Judge for Sevier County, Arkansas v. Calvin COOPER, Ray WILLIAMS and Wilma WILLIAMS\n84-110\n679 S.W.2d 207\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 19, 1984\n[Rehearing denied December 21, 1984.]\nJames F. Lane and John B. Hainen, for appellant.\nSmith, Stroud, McClerkin, Dunn and Nutter, by: Winford L. Dunn, Jr. and R. Bruce Lorenzen, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0105-01", "first_page_order": 133, "last_page_order": 136 }