Publisher's Notes.
This section was superseded by Inferior Court Rule 9 [now District Court Rule 9] with respect to appeals from a county court order involving a property assessment adjustment. See Pike Ave. Dev. Co. v. Pulaski County, 343 Ark. 338, 37 S.W.3d 177 (2001). The section was derived from Acts 1883, No. 27, § 1, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2287; Pope's Dig., § 2913; Acts 1965, No. 382, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2001.
16-67-202 — 16-67-208. [Repealed.]
A.C.R.C. Notes.
Acts 2013, No. 1148, contained two sections designated as “SECTION 2”.
Publisher's Notes.
These sections, concerning appeal to circuit court, were repealed by Acts 2013, No. 1148, § 54[55]. The sections were derived from:
16-67-202. Acts 1883, No. 27, § 2, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2288; Pope's Dig., § 2914; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2002.
16-67-203. Acts 1883, No. 27, § 3, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2289; Pope's Dig., § 2915; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2003.
16-67-204. Acts 1883, No. 27, § 5, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2291; Pope's Dig., § 2917; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2005
16-67-205. Acts 1883, No. 27, § 4, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2290; Pope's Dig., § 2916; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2004.
16-67-206. Chapters of Digest 1869, § 5, p. 109; C. & M. Dig., § 2236; Pope's Dig., § 2864; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2007.
16-67-207. Acts 1883, No. 27, § 6, p. 48; C. & M. Dig., § 2292; Pope's Dig., § 2918; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2006.
16-67-208. Acts 1873, No. 31, § 28, p. 53; C. & M. Dig., § 2293; Pope's Dig., § 2919; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-2008.
Notes of Decisions
Pike Avenue Dev. Co. v. Pulaski Cnty., 37 S.W.3d 177 (Ark. 2001).
· cites it 10× “Pike Avenue responded, stating that Ark. Code Ann § 16-67-201 (1987), rather than Inferior Court Rule 9, governed the appeal, and that Pike Avenue complied with § 16-67-201 and the statutory requirement that allows an aggrieved party to file an appeal in circuit court within six…”
Villines v. Harris, 11 S.W.3d 516 (Ark. 2000).
· cites it 4× “section 16-67-201 had six months to act, and failed to do so.”
Pulaski Cnty. v. Jacuzzi Bros. Div., 875 S.W.2d 496 (Ark. 1994).
· cites it 5× “7, § 33 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-201 (1987). The appellees moved to dismiss the county’s appeal on the premise that a county may not appeal from an adverse decision of its own court.”
Worley v. River Oaks Water Improvement Dist. No. 48, 990 S.W.2d 562 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Ruby Worley brings this appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing her appeal from county court because she neglected to file the affidavit required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-201 (c) (1987). Appellant raises two issues on appeal.”
Campbell v. City of Cherokee Vill. West, 969 S.W.2d 179 (Ark. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Thus, the holding in Skinner is limited to the issue of standing to pursue an appeal of a county court order in circuit court. This limited application is further evident by the fact that the Skinner court specifically declined to rule on the issue of whether the applicable…”
Perry v. Lee Cnty., 25 S.W.3d 443 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Appellant appealed from the county court to the circuit court pursuant to two statutes, specifically Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-201 (a) (1987) 1 and Ark.”
Beason v. Parks, 459 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “2d 562 (1999), the issue was whether the appellee had waived the | ^requirement in Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-67-201 (1987) 2 that a party appealing a decision from county court to circuit court must file an affidavit along with the prayer for appeal.”
Kidd v. Clark Cnty. Equalization Bd., 820 S.W.2d 67 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “The appellee filed a motion to dismiss in circuit court on the grounds that the appeal was not perfected because the appellant failed to file the affidavit required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-201 (1987). On March 29, 1990, the circuit court granted appellee’s motion and dismissed…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-201(a) — 1 case
Campbell v. City of Cherokee Vill. West, 969 S.W.2d 179 (Ark. 1998).
“Thus, the holding in Skinner is limited to the issue of standing to pursue an appeal of a county court order in circuit court. This limited application is further evident by the fact that the Skinner court specifically declined to rule on the issue of whether the applicable…”
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.