White v. Lorings
623 S.W.2d 837, 274 Ark. 272, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1468 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory prohibition against annexing agricultural lands that do not benefit from municipal services does not apply to petitions for the original incorporation of a town. A determination of whether a proposed incorporation area is 'unreasonably large' is based on a common sense evaluation of its size, population, and level of development.
Facts:
- More than 150 registered voters residing in the Wrightsville area petitioned to formally incorporate their community into a town.
- The proposed area contained 919 people, 410 houses, 25 businesses, seven churches, one school, and one post office.
- The initial proposed area was approximately two and one-half miles long and three-quarters of a mile wide.
- In response to objections from some landowners, the petitioners amended their proposal, removing four parcels of primarily agricultural land.
- The final, amended area proposed for incorporation was approximately 900 acres (less than two square miles) and consisted almost entirely of developed subdivisions.
- The majority of the land within the proposed boundaries had been platted into town lots for decades, with some plats dating back to 1881.
Procedural Posture:
- Voters in the Wrightsville area filed a petition for incorporation with the Pulaski County Court, the court of first instance.
- The Pulaski County Court denied the petition on October 19, 1979.
- The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the county court's decision to the Pulaski County Circuit Court.
- The circuit court conducted a trial de novo, during which the petitioners amended the proposed map to remove certain areas.
- On November 12, 1980, the circuit court entered a judgment, again denying the petition for incorporation.
- The petitioners, as appellants, then appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed incorporation area of approximately two square miles with 919 residents, over 400 homes, and various businesses constitute an 'unreasonably large' area under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-106, thereby justifying a court's denial of a petition for incorporation?
Opinions:
Majority - Purtle, J.
No. A proposed incorporation area of approximately two square miles with over 900 residents and significant development does not constitute an 'unreasonably large' area under the governing statute. The trial court erred by applying the stricter standards for municipal annexation, which prohibit including agricultural land, to a petition for original incorporation, for which no such prohibition exists. After the petitioners removed the agricultural land from the proposal, there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the remaining developed area was unreasonably large. Applying common sense, an area with this population, number of buildings, and existing infrastructure is a reasonable size for a new town and should be permitted to incorporate.
Dissenting - Hickman, J.
Yes. The trial court's finding that the area was unreasonably large was a discretionary judgment that should have been upheld because it was not clearly erroneous. The governing statute grants the trial court discretion to determine if incorporation is 'right and proper,' which is not an automatic process based solely on meeting signature and mapping requirements. The trial court properly considered factors such as the suitability of the land for municipal purposes and local opposition, including concerns from residents about a lack of clear financial planning for essential services. The majority improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the two lower courts that heard the evidence and were empowered to make this discretionary call.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant distinction in Arkansas municipal law between the standards for original incorporation and those for annexation. By ruling that the prohibition on including non-benefitting agricultural land applies only to annexation, the court potentially makes it easier for unincorporated communities with mixed-use land to form new municipalities. The case also establishes a 'common sense' precedent for evaluating whether a proposed area is 'unreasonably large,' focusing on population density and existing development rather than raw acreage alone. The dissent underscores the ongoing tension in appellate review between deferring to a trial court's factual findings and discretionary rulings versus an appellate court's authority to correct what it perceives as legal error.
