Chapman v. Bevilacqua

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no taxpayer standing existed to challenge the disbursement of federal funds that were “not derived from state taxpayer monies”
• explaining that under Arkansas law, citizens must only be a citizen and taxpayer to have standing in public fund cases, noting also that interest for standing in like cases is to be given “a very broad construction”
• upholding use of city funds for administration of federal redevelopment program because statutorily-authorized public purpose
• upholding against illegal exaction challenge the use of city funds for administration of federal redevelopment program because statutorily-authorized public purpose
• discussing the public purpose in connection with community block grants administered in the City of Fort Smith
• upholding use of city funds for administration of federal redevelopment program because statutorily-authorized public purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).