Hodges v. Lamora

3 Citing cases

  1. Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty

    2019 Ark. 214 (Ark. 2019)   Cited 12 times

    In reviewing a circuit court's decision on a motion to dismiss, we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hodges v. Lamora , 337 Ark. 470, 989 S.W.2d 530 (1999). Furthermore, we look only to the allegations in the complaint and not to matters outside the complaint.

  2. Rainey v. Hartness

    339 Ark. 293 (Ark. 1999)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that "we do not consider assertions of error that are unsupported by convincing legal authority or argument, unless it is apparent without further research that the argument is well taken"

    This court has stated on numerous occasions that we do not consider assertions of error that are unsupported by convincing legal authority or argument, unless it is apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. See, e.g., National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 338 Ark. 752, 1 S.W.3d 443 (1999); Ellis v. Price, 337 Ark. 542, 990 S.W.2d 543 (1999); Hodges v. Lamora, 337 Ark. 470, 989 S.W.2d 530 (1999). Accordingly, we summarily affirm on this issue.

  3. Opinion No. 2005-185

    Opinion No. 2005-185 (Ops.Ark.Atty.Gen. Oct. 25, 2005)

    Under these conditions taxpayers are entitled to broad relief. For convenience, we label this type of case a "public funds" exaction case. Pledger v. Featherlite Precast Corp., 308 Ark. 124, 128, 823 S.W.2d 852 (1992) (citations omitted); see also Hodges v. Lamora, 337 Ark. 470, 989 S.W.2d 530 (1999). In my opinion, these principles would likewise apply in determining the propriety of expending an appropriation for the purchase of land on behalf of a county. Compare Venhaus, supra (declaring the obverse principle that a quorum court cannot underfund necessary services but must appropriate a "reasonable" amount therefor).