Legal Opinion

Stuttgart Electric Co. v. Riceland Seed Co.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided January 30, 1991No. CA 90-184PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Melvin Mayfield, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Arkansas County Chancery Court denying appellant’s request for a mandatory injunction to require appellee to remove a portion of a warehouse which encroaches onto appellant’s property by up to 2.3 feet. After trial on the merits, the chancellor issued a letter opinion which set out his findings and conclusions as follows:

1. The encroachment by the building is slight and was not done intentionally.

2. Due to its angle, the building line intersects with the actual property line. This could leave the [appellant] with approximately as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hardy v. BurroughsMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Rzeppa v. SeymourMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Cammers v. Marion CablevisionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  4. Leffingwell v. GlendenningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
  5. Hamilton v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Clifford Family Ltd. Liability Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  2. Proctor v. HuntingtonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. Proctor v. HuntingtonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  4. Adams v. MoodyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2009
  5. Szymczak v. LaFerraraNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API