Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Clemmons

I disagree with the result reached by the majority because this court should not weigh the evidence offered. It should only determine whether there is evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. He made specific findings that:(1) Appellant, by its attorney, resident engineer and district engineer, fraudulently induced appellees to enter into this consent judgment by falsely representing to them that an underpass suitable for the movement of farm machinery and cattle of appellees would be constructed and maintained by appellant.(2) Appellant knew that the underpass as constructed…