{
  "id": 1877676,
  "name": "Craig WILLIAMS et al v. VILLAGE CREEK, WHITE RIVER AND MAYBERRY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Village Creek, White River & Mayberry Levee & Drainage District",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-11",
  "docket_number": "84-246",
  "first_page": "194",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 194"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "685 S.W.2d 797"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "173 S.W. 825",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ark. 30",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1564965
      ],
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/117/0030-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 S.W. 947",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1924,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "949"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1379828
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1924,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "326"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/165/0318-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4705,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.836,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333493452170769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6294921055242989
    },
    "sha256": "2ee9ccfa187bc4bc3835ec07cf08c03121c9df07d076d57b5f924e17fdb6db6a",
    "simhash": "1:704f60eda420fb26",
    "word_count": 786
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Craig WILLIAMS et al v. VILLAGE CREEK, WHITE RIVER AND MAYBERRY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe question presented here is whether a drainage district may add lands, after the improvements have been completed, on the basis that the lands to be added benefit from the improvements. The answer to this question requires interpretation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 21-514 (Repl. 1968), thus our jurisdiction rests on Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 29 l.c.\nIt is undisputed that the improvements constructed by the district were completed prior to its petition to add to the district lands owned by the appellants and others. There are provisions for adding lands benefited by a district\u2019s improvements after completion. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 21-534, 21-536 and 21-537 (Repl. 1968). However, they permit annexation only when a \u201cslough, marsh or lake\u201d has benefited by having been connected to drainage ditches or conduits constructed by the district.\nThe district did not rely on \u00a7\u00a7 21-534, 21-536, and 21-537. It has from the outset contended that it could annex the lands of the appellants pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 21-514 (Repl. 1968) despite the undisputed fact that the district\u2019s improvements had been completed some four years prior to the filing by the district in the circuit court below of its petition seeking to add the new lands.\nSection 21-514 provides that if the district\u2019s commissioners determine that \u201clands not embraced within the boundaries of the district will be affected by the proposed improvement\u201d they should report their assessment of the estimated benefits to the court. The lands may be added if it is found they will benefit. The district would have us ignore the word \u201cproposed\u201d in the statutory language, yet it has supplied neither reason nor authority for us to do so.\nWe need not recite the entire statutory scheme for creation of drainage districts to point out that it makes sense to follow the literal meaning of \u00a7 21-514. It is enough to note that it gives owners of the land to be added notice that they are likely to be assessed for the benefit to them of the proposed improvement. It allows them to protest the construction of the improvement before their lands are affected.\nIn Bayou Meto Drainage Dist. of Lonoke County v. Ingram, 165 Ark. 318, 264 S.W. 947 (1924), a district was allowed to alter its plan prior to completion of the improvement. The alteration resulted in benefits to lands not theretofore included in the district. We looked to the general legislative purpose of drainage districts and said an improvement would not be deemed to have been completed if it were found to be abortive just prior to finishing the planned construction. The additional construction needed to complete the improvement was allowed, and we said:\nIf the statute authorizes the change of plans and extension of boundaries after the approval of the original plans and the assessment of benefits, then it follows that it may be done at any time before the improvement is completed, for there is no other period in the proceedings at which the authority may be limited. [165 Ark. at 326; 264 S.W. at 949]\nWhile the Bayou Meto opinion seemed primarily to rely on other sections, although mentioning \u00a7 21-514, its theme is obviously consistent with the notion expressed here that landowners whose property is to be assessed to pay for an improvement should have notice and an opportunity to object before the \u201cbenefit\u201d is conferred upon them.\nThe principal case cited by the district is Mudd v. St. Francis Drainage District, 117 Ark. 30, 173 S.W. 825 (1915). As other cases cited by the district, the Mudd case involved a district created by a special legislative act and added to by a further legislative act. The district would have us find this special legislative action to be persuasive toward holding lands benefited may be added to a district where the construction is complete. To the contrary, we find those special legislative Acts have nothing to do with the interpretation of \u00a7 21-514 which both parties assert as controlling the outcome of this case.\nIn permitting the district to proceed with the proposed addition of the land of the appellants and others, the circuit court apparently misinterpreted \u00a7 21-514 to allow the addition despite the fact that the improvement was no longer \u201cproposed\u201d but had been completed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thaxton if Hout, by: Phillip D. Hout, for appellants.",
      "Pickens, McLarty if Watson; Boyce if Boyce; and Friday, Eldredgeif Clark, by: James A. Buttry and Robert S. Shafer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Craig WILLIAMS et al v. VILLAGE CREEK, WHITE RIVER AND MAYBERRY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT\n84-246\n685 S.W.2d 797\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 11, 1985\n[Rehearing denied April 15, 1985.]\nThaxton if Hout, by: Phillip D. Hout, for appellants.\nPickens, McLarty if Watson; Boyce if Boyce; and Friday, Eldredgeif Clark, by: James A. Buttry and Robert S. Shafer, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0194-01",
  "first_page_order": 220,
  "last_page_order": 223
}