# Murphy v. Epes

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 29, 1984 · 283 Ark. 517

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772994

## Case

- **Full name:** Jim MURPHY v. Wooten EPES, Executive Director of Arkansas Housing Development Agency, Mort HARDWICKE, Charles M. STOUT, James BRANYAN, Troy BURRIS, Fred DACUS, Margaret DAVENPORT, Tommy EDWARDS, Mahlon A. MARTIN, Bill MATHIS, Betty WALKER, George H. WRIGHT, Jr., Members of Board of Directors of Arkansas Housing Development Agency, and PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 29, 1984
- **Citations:** 283 Ark. 517; 678 S.W.2d 352; 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1871
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hickman
- **Judges:** James H. McKenzie
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9772994

## Opinion text

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I expressed my views in Purvis v. City of Little Rock, 282 Ark. 102 667 S.W.2d 936 (1984), and I will adhere to them. The constitution clearly sets out which bonds the state or any government entity should be involved in. The bonds in this case, issued by a state agency, are simply a way to directly aid a private developer who builds and sells houses. While the bonds declare that the state will not be bound, this state entity was created expressly to issue bonds. The state is involved because it must declare them to be bonds issued for a public purpose. Otherwise, they would not be legitimate tax free bonds, which is the primary purpose of their existence. The state is not supposed to lend its credit or.good name to such private ventures. Ark. Const. Amend. XVI (1874). See also Ark. Const. Art. XII, §§ 6 and 7. However, that is what is happening here: the state’s good name is being used to promote these bonds.
These bonds are not issued to help “poor” people, which is how they are being justified. The record bears out that moderate and high income people will be the greatest beneficiaries of the bonds. There will not be any destitute people living in these houses. Arkansas does not need to be in the business of aiding private developers in building houses that are no different than others on the market. This case is not actually different in principle from Purvis v. City of Little Rock, supra, where we struck down a scheme to aid a private motel. If anything, the public purpose argument is less forceful here. The only purpose here is to aid bond dealers, developers, and investors by way of tax free bonds.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772994. Public record. Not legal advice.