Dixon v. Daniel Butane Gas Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an industrial facility intended to spur economic development was not for public use
• holding that an industrial facility was not for public use, in part, because it only indirectly benefitted the public
• concluding that an industrial facility was not publicly funded because financing from the city would be repaid and a private corporation would ultimately own the property
• holding that the provisions of an act adopted later in time repeal the conflicting provisions of an earlier act
• holding that cities involved in industrial revenue bond projects are not required, under language similar to § 14-167-204 , to pay the prevailing wage otherwise applicable in the construction of public projects.
• concluding with regard to a city that Act 9 superseded the latter-adopted provisions of A.C.A. § 22-9-301 , which requires payment of the prevailing minimum wage to workers on certain public projects

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).