Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-402 (2026)
Authority generally
Cities of the first and second class and incorporated towns shall have the power to adopt and enforce plans for the coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the municipality and its environs.
History. Acts 1957, No. 186, § 1; 1963, No. 36, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-2825.
Case Notes
Conflict of Jurisdiction.
Where there is a conflict over the exercise of jurisdiction over roads in an unincorporated portion of the county, between the county court and any creature of the legislature, the latter must give way. Butler v. City of Little Rock, 231 Ark. 834, 332 S.W.2d 812 (1960).
Nature of Authority.
A municipal corporation's exercise of its zoning power is the equivalent of an act by the General Assembly. City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park, 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996).
By enacting the ordinance in question, the board approved the recommended action and amended a prior ordinance, but it rezoned the subject property and added new conditions to accommodate the rezoning and, thus, the board took legislative action delegated to it under this section; because the action was not administrative, the landowners who challenged the ordinance were not required to proceed under § 14-56-425 and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. Summit Mall Co. v. Lemond, 355 Ark. 190, 132 S.W.3d 725 (2003).
Rezoning Power.
Where a chancery court agreed with a city and rezoned certain land as commercial, it exceeded its authority, since the legislature only gave the rezoning power to city councils or the legislative body of a city. City of Little Rock v. Breeding, 273 Ark. 437, 619 S.W.2d 664 (1981).
Cited: Baldridge v. City of N. Little Rock, 258 Ark. 246, 523 S.W.2d 912 (1975); McMinn v. City of Little Rock, 275 Ark. 458, 631 S.W.2d 288 (1982); Potocki v. City of Ft. Smith, 279 Ark. 19, 648 S.W.2d 462 (1983); City of Fayetteville v. IBI, Inc., 280 Ark. 484, 659 S.W.2d 505 (1983); Mings v. Ft. Smith, 288 Ark. 42, 701 S.W.2d 705 (1986).