Langford v. Brand, 81-169
| Decision Date | 21 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-169,81-169 |
| Citation | 626 S.W.2d 198,274 Ark. 426 |
| Parties | George LANGFORD, et al., Appellants, v. Malvin U. BRAND, County Judge, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Irwin & Kennedy by Robert E. Irwin, Russellville, for appellants.
Wilbur C. Bentley, Pros. Atty. by Larry D. Vaught, Deputy Pros. Atty., Little Rock, for appellees.
This suit was brought by the appellants, six residents of the Harris Brake Fire Protection District, seeking a judgment declaring the district to be void for the single reason that the quorum court ordinance creating the district was adopted before the required public notice and hearing rather than afterward. The county judge and the other defendants answer that the statute, properly construed, contemplates that the passage of the ordinance should precede the notice and hearing, which was the procedure used. The chancellor upheld the validity of the district. The Court of Appeals certified the case to us as presenting an issue of statutory construction. Rule 29(1)(c).
The trial court was unquestionably right. The statute providing for the creation of fire protection districts, Act 35 of 1979, is a detailed, comprehensive act comprising 23 sections. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 20-923 et seq. (Supp.1981). With respect to the question at issue there is a slight conflict between Sections 1 and 2 of the act, but when the act is read as a whole the conflict is seen to be inadvertent and immaterial.
Section 1 is general and merely introductory, but Section 2 is the pertinent specific effective part of the act and must be regarded as controlling. We need quote only Section 1 and the first paragraph of Section 2:
Section 1. Fire protection districts may be established to serve all or any defined portion of any county in either of the following ways:
(a) By the Quorum Court by ordinance enacted after notice and public hearing, or
(b) By the County Court pursuant to an election of the qualified electors of the proposed district, initiated, called and conducted as provided herein.
Section 2. (a) When an ordinance is adopted by the Quorum Court establishing a fire protection district, the Quorum Court shall publish notice of the adoption of the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Such notice shall include a copy of the ordinance and shall prescribe a time and place for a public hearing on the ordinance. The public hearing shall be held at least thirty (30) days and not more than sixty (60) days after the date of publication of the notice. If at such hearing a majority of the qualified electors in the proposed district appear in person to oppose the establishment of the district or if petitions opposing the establishment of the district and containing signatures of a majority of the qualified electors in the proposed district are filed at or before such public hearing, the ordinance creating the district shall be void.
The second paragraph of Section 2(a) then provides that even if the majority of the electors do not object to the establishment of the district, there must still be a special election before and bonds are issued. Section 2(b) gives an alternative procedure by which 10% of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stover v. Stover, 85-50
...there is inconsistency or doubt about the meaning of a statute the general terms will be controlled by the specific. Langford v. Brand, 274 Ark. 426, 626 S.W.2d 198 (1982); Scott v. Greer, 229 Ark. 1043, 320 S.W.2d 262 (1959). The substantially older cases cited by the majority on the limit......
-
Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Protection Dist., 85-145
...statutes was not challenged. The Chancellor upheld the formation of the district. This Court affirmed that decision. Langford v. Brand, 274 Ark. 426, 626 S.W.2d 198 (1981). In 1984, a second suit was brought by the same plaintiffs, again seeking a judgment declaring the district to be void,......
-
Dooley v. Hot Springs Family YMCA, 89-221
...we may correct errors by rejecting certain words and substitute other to reconcile apparent inconsistencies. Langford v. Brand, 274 Ark. 426, 626 S.W.2d 198 (1981). In Carter v. Hartenstein, 248 Ark. 1172, 455 S.W.2d 918 (1970), we examined the constitutionality of this statute but did not ......
- Killman v. State