Ark. Code Ann. » Title 14 Chapter 116
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-116-101 (2020)

Title

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter may be cited as “The Regional Water Distribution District Act.”

History. Acts 1957, No. 114, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 21-1401.

Case Notes

Cited: Hale v. Southwest Ark. Water Dist., 244 Ark. 647, 244 Ark. 647, 427 S.W.2d 14 (1968); City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686, 120 S.W.3d 55 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2014 · leading case: Hopkins v. City of Brinkley, 2014 Ark. 139, 432 S.W.3d 609.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hopkins v. City of Brinkley, 2014 Ark. 139, 432 S.W.3d 609. · cites it 2× “2009-060, in which the Attorney General concluded that “[t]he individual payment records of customers of public utilities (such as water distributers under A.C.A. § 14-116-101 et seq.) are not eligible for any specific exemption under the FOA,” Arkansas Attorney General Opinion…”
City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 120 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “2 The creation of regional water systems to replace independently owned municipal water systems has been authorized and encouraged by the General Assembly through the Regional Water Distribution District Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 14-116-101 et seq. (Repl.”
City of Fort Smith v. River Valley Reg'l Water Dist., 37 S.W.3d 631 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 8× “The City of Fort Smith (“the City”) appeals the trial court’s decision challenging the sufficiency of the petition under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-116-101 — 14-116-202 and challenging the trial court’s determination that the petitioners demonstrated a necessity for the establishment…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.