{
  "id": 1916717,
  "name": "SCOTT COUNTY, et al. v. Donald FROST",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott County v. Frost",
  "decision_date": "1991-04-29",
  "docket_number": "90-353",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "305 Ark. 358"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "807 S.W.2d 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636939
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 Ark. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881032
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-113-306",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 2897,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4113413722094885e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6470124319989312
    },
    "sha256": "0504f8ebca6c3fc85813fe2f2b54805f938b706a615d71dd02a7167c82fc36aa",
    "simhash": "1:f2de47d8da92a058",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:54.224345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SCOTT COUNTY, et al. v. Donald FROST"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nIn 1989, Scott County undertook reappraisal of property for taxation purposes to comply with Ark. Const, amend. 57. The reappraisal could not be completed prior to 1990. Donald Frost, the appellee, brought a class action in the Scott County Circuit Court to enjoin the appellants, Scott County, the Scott County Judge, Collector, and Assessor, from collecting taxes until all of the property in Scott County had been reassessed. The Assessment Coordination Division of the Arkansas Public Service Commission was later joined as a defendant.\nMr. Frost contended that only 40 % to 45 % of the property in the County had been reassessed and that it would violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Arkansas Constitution if taxes were to be collected in 1990 based on the 1989 assessments. The parties stipulated that some property owners would owe taxes in 1990 on the reassessed value of their property, and others would pay at the old assessment rate.\nThe Circuit Court granted injunctive relief against the County on the basis of Ark. Const., art. 16, \u00a7 5(a), which requires that taxation be based on property value \u201cequal and uniform throughout the State.\u201d The order ultimately was stayed during appeal on condition that, when collecting the tax, the County would notify members of the class of taxpayers affected that their taxes might change as a result of this case.\nWe must reverse the decision and dismiss the case because the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. County courts have \u201cexclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes.\u201d Ark. Const. art. 7, \u00a7 28. While chancery courts may enjoin \u201cillegal or unauthorized taxes and assessments,\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-113-306 (1987); McIntosh v. Southwestern Truck Sales, 304 Ark. 224, 800 S.W.2d 431 (1991), we do not remand for transfer to a chancery court. Mr. Frost is not contending that his assessment is \u201cillegal or unauthorized\u201d but that there is a procedural flaw. We discussed the distinction in the McIntosh case. See also Burgess v. Four States Mem. Hosp., 250 Ark. 485, 465 S.W.2d 693 (1971).\nA circuit court could have jurisdiction of a taxation matter such as this, but it would be as a result of Ark. Const., art. 7, \u00a7 33, which provides for appeals to be taken from county court to circuit court. The record in this case demonstrates that Mr. Frost made no appearance before the Scott County Equalization Board from which he could then have appealed to the County Court and the Circuit Court.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Frank J. Wills III, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.",
      "Parker and Parker, by: Wayland A. Parker II, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SCOTT COUNTY, et al. v. Donald FROST\n90-353\n807 S.W.2d 469\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 29, 1991\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Frank J. Wills III, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nParker and Parker, by: Wayland A. Parker II, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}