# City of Hot Springs v. Creviston

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 3, 1986 · 288 Ark. 286

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667211

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF HOT SPRINGS; HOT SPRINGS ADVERTISING & TOURIST PROMOTION COMMISSION; ARKANSAS BANK & TRUST COMPANY; And FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOT SPRINGS v. Tom CREVISTON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 3, 1986
- **Citations:** 288 Ark. 286; 705 S.W.2d 415; 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1780
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holt
- **Judges:** George Rose Smith
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667211

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that Ark. Const. art. 16, § 1 of course includes "transparent evasions by which a token commission or other body is created to sign the bonds while disclaiming any responsibility on the part of its creator."
- stating that Ark. Const. art. 16, 1 of course includes "transparent evasions by which a token commission or other body is created to sign the bonds while disclaiming any responsibility on the part of its creator."

## Opinion text

Jack Holt, Jr., Justice, concurring. I join with the court’s supplemental opinion, issued upon the denial of the Petition for Rehearing. However, I consider it appropriate to note that certain petitioners in amicus curiae briefs ask us to rule on several collateral matters, primarily concerning Arkansas revenue bonds issued in accordance with amendment 20 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and the constitutional aspects of bond refunding by a municipality without prior voter approval.
These issues are properly not resolved by the majority opinion, however, I think an explanation for the failure to address them is warranted. We do not discuss these subjects simply because they do not fall within the framework of the case before us, which questions the authority of a city or municipality within this state to issue municipal bonds without an election in light of the constitutional restraints of amendment 13 to the Arkansas Constitution.
We are now being asked to decide questions on issues which were not before the trial court. Since we do not issue advisory opinions, we must decline to do so here. McDonald v. Bowen, 250 Ark. 1049 , 468 S.W.2d 765 (1971); Hogan v. Bright, 214 Ark. 691 , 218 S.W.2d 80 (1949). Because the request for our opinion on the legality of state bonds issued under amendment 20 and bond refunding, is merely seeking advice, our opinion would not have the force, effect, and binding nature of a judicial decision which resolves the actual specific controversy between the parties.
We are not unmindful of the desire, or perhaps need, for an answer to these issues, however, to address them in a case such as this would be without precedent and against our long-standing rule that the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. McCuen, et al. v. Harris, Tax Collector, 271 Ark. 863 , 611 S.W.2d 503 (1981).
We need only say further that we have fully answered and clarified the issues which were properly before us.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667211. Public record. Not legal advice.