Court Opinion

ID: 9674867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:41.10929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.975752
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Per Curiam, on rehearing. The members of the court, having themselves experienced the difficulties presented by appellate court decisions in which no single opinion expresses the position taken by a majority of the judges, have thought it desirable to issue a supplemental opinion covering a few basic questions as to each of which a majority are in broad agreement, despite a continued adherence to individual views expressed in the five opinions handed down on March 26. 1. The decision in this case, Purvis II, does not impair a line of cases typified by Snodgrass v. Pocahontas, 189 Ark. 819, 75 S.W.2d 223 (1934), holding that when a city or county owns a revenue-producing facility of a genuinely public nature, such as a municipal waterworks, bonds may be issued without an election to obtain funds for the operation or expansion of that public facility, the bonds being payable only from revenues derived from the facility. Justices George Rose Smith, Purtle, Dudley, Hays, and Hollingsworth concur in this view. 2. Although the attraction of tourists may in some situations constitute an industry within Amendment 49, the court is unwilling to attempt to define “tourism” as an industry, beyond the holding in Purvis II that a motel such as the La Quinta Inn does not qualify for a tax-exempt bond issue under Amendment 49 and Act 380 of 1971, as amended. Justices George Rose Smith, Hickman, Purtle, and Dudley concur in this view. 3. The argument on rehearing that the court’s interpretation of the caveat in Purvis I denies due process to La Quinta and its bondholders is rejected, because the inclusion of an express provision in the La Quinta bonds making them callable at a premium if they are held to be taxable and also of a provision that the bonds be secured in addition by a $4,565,625 letter of credit issued by Crocker National Bank makes it obvious that all parties concerned in the La Quinta bond issue realized that the bonds might not be tax exempt. Justices George Rose Smith, Hickman, Purtle, and Dudley concur in this view. 4. The court unanimously declines to issue an advisory opinion by attempting to answer the various questions, going beyond the issues in this case, to which answers are requested by the Attorney General’s amicus curiae brief. Rehearing denied. Opinion on Disqualification P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice. The appellant has asserted that my participation in this case is a conflict of interest citing Canon 2 and Canon 3 from the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by this Court by a per curiam on November 5, 1975. After carefully reviewing the canons and issues in this matter, I find no possibility of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety by my participation. Neither do I find that I cannot perform my duties impartially or diligently. I have no financial or other interest in the subject matter in this case. My ownership in a building located in the Metrocenter Improvement District has no connection to this case now before us.