McKnight v. Newkirk

Supreme Court of Arkansas

McKnight v. Newkirk

507 S.W.2d 98, 256 Ark. 342, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1438

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 1, 1974

Docket73-283

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 S.W.2d 98 (McKnight v. Newkirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKnight v. Newkirk, 507 S.W.2d 98, 256 Ark. 342, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1438 (Ark. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The issue here is whether a person prosecuted in a Mayor’s court for violation of a municipal ordinance is entitled to take a change of venue under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-725 (Repl. 1962), to a municipal court. Appellee Charles Newkirk, who was charged in the mayor’s court of West Fork, Arkansas, with violation of a zoning ordinance, obtained a writ of mandamus in the circuit court to compel appellant, J. N. McKnight, mayor of West Fork, to transfer the venue to the Fayetteville Municipal Court. We agree with appellant that the trial court erroneously interpreted the statute.

A reading of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-725, supra, will show that a change of venue is required only when a civil or criminal case is brought before a justice of the peace. In Russell v. Miller, 253 Ark. 583, 487 S.W. 2d 617 (1972), we construed this statute as being applicable to a mayor’s court when it was exercising the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. However Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1405 (Repl. 1964), gives mayor courts exclusive jurisdiction “. . .of all prosecutions and actions for infractions of the by-laws or ordinances of the city or town in which they are located. . .”. Consequently, it follows that the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court must be set aside.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The issue here is whether a person prosecuted in a Mayor’s court for violation of a municipal ordinance is entitled to take a change of venue under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-725 (Repl. 1962), to a municipal court. Appellee Charles Newkirk, who was charged in the mayor’s court of West Fork, Arkansas, with violation of a zoning ordinance, obtained a writ of mandamus in the circuit court to compel appellant, J. N. McKnight, mayor of West Fork, to transfer the venue to the Fayetteville Municipal Court. We agree with appellant that the trial court erroneously interpreted the statute.

A reading of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-725, supra, will show that a change of venue is required only when a civil or criminal case is brought before a justice of the peace. In Russell v. Miller, 253 Ark. 583, 487 S.W. 2d 617 (1972), we construed this statute as being applicable to a mayor’s court when it was exercising the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. However Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1405 (Repl. 1964), gives mayor courts exclusive jurisdiction “. . .of all prosecutions and actions for infractions of the by-laws or ordinances of the city or town in which they are located. . .”. Consequently, it follows that the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court must be set aside.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 S.W.2d 98, 256 Ark. 342, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-newkirk-ark-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack