Town of Lead Hill, Arkansas, Appellants v. Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authori — Danielson, J…

Summary

Justice Danielson, dissenting, would reverse the summary judgment enforcing the water-purchase contract because the contract terms create a material factual dispute about whether Lead Hill must satisfy the minimum monthly charge from its general revenues, potentially implicating article 12, section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. He also reasons that the contract's minimum payment obligation may exceed Lead Hill's annual revenue and that the contract does not clearly permit termination if water-sale revenues are insufficient. Justice Josephine Linker Hart, dissenting separately, would reverse based additionally on the circuit court's allegedly improper use of mandamus to enforce a disputed commercial debt.