{
  "id": 1872657,
  "name": "Adley BELL, et al. v. Floyd H. FULKERSON, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bell v. Fulkerson",
  "decision_date": "1987-04-13",
  "docket_number": "86-238",
  "first_page": "604",
  "last_page": "605",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "291 Ark. 604"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "727 S.W.2d 141"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717880
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.W. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1891,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322331
      ],
      "year": 1891,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719755
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.919,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06886386040267213
    },
    "sha256": "57e0c74e1ee899e3e32ce624766f73ea371d2a84cafbdb5f1e806b7afb85df9b",
    "simhash": "1:92eba2453739d561",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:32.108459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hays and Glaze, JJ., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Adley BELL, et al. v. Floyd H. FULKERSON, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nThe appellants, who reside in Sewer Improvement District 222 (SID 222), filed suit in chancery court to enjoin the district from issuing bonds without an election. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.\nFor reversal the appellants argue that the court erred in finding: (1) that SID 222\u2019s commissioners and the district did not constitute the state, a city, county, town or other municipality within the meaning of Ark. Const, of 1874, art. 16, \u00a7 1 and 2 that this constitutional provision is inapplicable to SID 222 and the bonds issued by it. Neither point is persuasive and we affirm.\nThe arguments for reversal are so closely related that they can be condensed into the single argument: that the trial court erred in finding that sewer improvement districts are not bound by the provisions of Ark. Const, of 1874, art. 16, \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2. The appellants candidly admit that all of our prior decisions have held that improvement districts are not municipalities within the meaning of Article 16. Acknowledging that almost 100 years of precedent is contrary to their position, they urge us to give \u201cplain meaning\u201d to the words of Article 16 as we did in City of Hot Springs v. Creviston, 288 Ark. 286, 713 S.W.2d 230 (1986), and require an election prior to the issuance of bonds. Article 16, section 1, in part, states:\nNeither the state, nor any city, county, town or other municipality in this state, shall ever lend its credit for any purpose whatever; nor shall any county, city, town or municipality ever issue any interest-bearing evidence of indebtedness, except such bonds as may be authorized by law . . . provided that cities of the first and second class may issue by and with the consent of a majority of the qualified electors of said municipality voting on the question at an election. . . .\nThe appellants are correct in acknowledging that we have held many times that an improvement district is not a municipality governed by the provisions of Article 16. City of Hot Springs v. Creviston, supra, and Fitzgerald v. Walker, 55 Ark. 148, 17 S.W. 702 (1891). In Eaton v. McCuen, 273 Ark. 154, 617 S.W.2d 341 (1981), we stated: \u201cIt is settled law that Article 16 does not apply to assessments for improvement districts.\u201d Without citation of additional precedent, we again hold that an improvement district is not a municipality and is not bound by the restrictions contained in Article 16.\nEven if the bonds issued by SID 222 were held to be under the restrictions of Article 16, the bonds would be valid without prior voter approval because they were issued before Creviston was decided. In Creviston this Court specifically held that bonds issued prior to that decision were not affected by it.\nBased upon the well-established principle that improvement districts are not bound by the provisions of Article 16, we find that the trial court was correct in dismissing appellant\u2019s complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted.\nAffirmed.\nHays and Glaze, JJ., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dan J. Kroha and Royce L. Lewis, for appellant.",
      "House, Wallace & Jewell, P.A., by: Daryl G. Raney and Anne Owings Wilson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Adley BELL, et al. v. Floyd H. FULKERSON, et al.\n86-238\n727 S.W.2d 141\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 13, 1987\nDan J. Kroha and Royce L. Lewis, for appellant.\nHouse, Wallace & Jewell, P.A., by: Daryl G. Raney and Anne Owings Wilson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0604-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 637
}