Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Curlin v. Harding Drain Improvement District
Citations: 221 Ark. 412; 253 S.W.2d 345; 1952 Ark. LEXIS 918Docket: 5-58
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; December 22, 1952; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The constitutional right of rural property owners to create a drainage district that includes most of Pine Bluff is under scrutiny in this appeal regarding the Harding Drain Improvement District, established by the Jefferson County Court under Arkansas Statutes 21-501, et seq. The district encompasses approximately 6,400 acres, with about 71% within Pine Bluff. The municipality faces severe drainage challenges, including flooding caused by the Harding Drain, which has deteriorated, exacerbating property damage and disrupting community life. Efforts to mitigate flooding included installing a floodgate near the Arkansas River, but ongoing issues necessitate further drainage improvements. The appeal raises a legal question rather than factual disputes, despite extensive expenditures on the city's sewage system and the argument that improvements authorized for the Harding District complement these efforts. The projected costs for the drainage project amount to nearly $600,000, with over $300,000 contributed locally and commitments for right-of-way access and necessary infrastructure improvements. Maintenance post-completion will be the responsibility of the district. No challenges regarding assessment inequality or unnecessary construction have been raised. The appellants reference Craig v. Russellville Waterworks Improvement District, emphasizing the constitutional limitations on assessments for local improvements, which must affect only adjoining property and require majority consent from property owners. Reversal of the case is argued by appellants on the basis that a significant portion of Pine Bluff lies within the drainage area and that consent from a majority of urban landowners was not secured. However, the court references Butler v. Board of Directors of Fourche Drainage District to support the validity of forming the drainage district. The court notes that the constitutional provisions under Article 19, Section 27 apply only to assessments for local improvements within municipalities, and not to broader improvements that include both urban and rural properties. It concludes that the district in question does not breach these constitutional requirements. If the appellants had demonstrated that the inclusion of rural property was minimal or disproportionately valued, suggesting fraud, a different legal principle would have been considered. The court affirms the decision and orders an immediate mandate due to the public interest involved.