Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-502 (2026)

Hearing — Notice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A public hearing shall be conducted within sixty (60) days of the proposal of the ordinance calling for annexation.
  2. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, the governing body of the municipality shall publish a legal notice setting out the legal description of the territory proposed to be annexed and notify by certified mail all the property owners within the area proposed to be annexed of their right to appear at the public hearing to present their views on the proposed annexation.

History. Acts 1979, No. 314, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-338.

Case Notes

Due Process

Assuming that the City of Van Buren Council failed to provide landowner notice before the annexation of his property, the violation of this section did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because he did not show that Arkansas lacked an adequate postdeprivation mechanism to provide him with just compensation for the alleged taking; therefore, landowner's due process claim failed. Cormack v. Settle-Beshears, 474 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2007).

Hearing.

City's actions to comply with the maximum-occupant load at the board meeting did not violate this section where evidence was lacking that anyone who wished to speak was not allowed to do so. Houston v. City of Hot Springs, 2018 Ark. App. 196, 546 S.W.3d 545 (2018).

Residents' equal protection argument failed where the city held a public hearing as required by this section and allowed anyone to sign up to speak at that hearing. Houston v. City of Hot Springs, 2018 Ark. App. 196, 546 S.W.3d 545 (2018).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2018–2018 · leading case: Houston v. City of Hot Springs, 546 S.W.3d 545 (2018).
Houston v. City of Hot Springs, 546 S.W.3d 545 (2018). “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-502 (b). Appellants do not dispute the fact that all notices of the hearing were sent as required by the statute.”
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.