# Benton County v. CITY OF BENTONVILLE

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 2008 · 373 Ark. 356

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678329

## Case

- **Full name:** BENTON COUNTY, Arkansas v. CITY of BENTONVILLE, City of Siloam Springs, City of Rogers, City of Pea Ridge, City of Centerton, City of Garfield, and City of Avoca
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 8, 2008
- **Citations:** 373 Ark. 356; 284 S.W.3d 52; 2008 Ark. LEXIS 312
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Jim Hannah
- **Cited by:** 0 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/9678329

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. While I agree that a classification has been shown by Benton County relating to the cities of Bentonville and Siloam Springs, Benton County had the burden of proving no legitimate rational basis existed for the classification when Act 219 was enacted in 1963. This was not done. In fact, both the county and the cities focused on the past nine years in their arguments, pro and con, about whether a rational basis existed for the classification.
It is not the job of this court to speculate about the circumstances in 1963 which might militate in favor of a conclusion that Act 219 was special or local legislation under Amendment 14. Nor is it our job to ascertain those circumstances and make the arguments for the parties.
Whether Act 219 violated Amendment 14 in 1963 remains an open question. For these reasons, I concur.
Imber, J., joins this concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678329. Public record. Not legal advice.