Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-27-311 (2026)

Special sessions generally

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(i) Completing its work of the equalization of property assessments; or

(ii) Reviewing or extending its work of the equalization of property assessments.

History. Acts 1951 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 9, §§ 1-3; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 84-717 — 84-719; Acts 1999, No. 1326, § 6.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Heller and Sallings, Survey of Public Law, 3 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 296.

Case Notes

Appeals.

Where petition to reduce assessment had been denied by county equalization board, then this remedy had been exhausted before the board, but the right of appeal to the county court still remained, and the board's action or inaction did not preclude pursuing the statutory remedy for a hearing. Jones v. Crouch, 231 Ark. 720, 332 S.W.2d 238 (1960).

Appraisers.

Where the General Assembly has mandated payment from county funds for appraisal of property, neither the quorum court nor the county judge would have any discretion in whether the expenses should be paid; the expense of the appraisers must be paid by the county, regardless of the results of a referendum. Quattlebaum v. Davis, 265 Ark. 588, 579 S.W.2d 599 (1979).

Assessments.

A county equalization board has no authority to reduce or raise an assessment after the third Monday in November. Jones v. Crouch, 231 Ark. 720, 332 S.W.2d 238 (1960).

Cited: Burgess v. Four States Mem'l Hosp., 250 Ark. 485, 465 S.W.2d 693 (1971); Prather v. Martin, 257 Ark. 576, 519 S.W.2d 72 (1975).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2000–2000 · leading case: Villines v. Harris, 11 S.W.3d 516 (Ark. 2000).
Villines v. Harris, 11 S.W.3d 516 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 8× “Ark.Code Ann. § 26-27-311. As egregious as this decision may have been, it cannot be the basis for an illegal-exaction case, pursuant to the precedents cited above.”
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.