Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hatchie Coon Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 6, 2008No. 07-356Published

1DissentPaul E. Danielson, Justice

Because the majority has misconstrued both the facts and the law in this case, resulting in a deprivation of Hatchie Coon’s property, I respectfully dissent. The decision relied upon by the majority does indeed make clear that the State can “take,” by prescription, lands that it has extended by artificial means. See State ex rel. Thompson v. Parker, 132 Ark. 316, 200 S.W. 1014 (1917). However, the State’s action must be taken without the consent of the landowner. See id. at 321-22, 200 S.W. at 1016 (“When the waters of natural navigable lakes in this state are extended by artificial means, so…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Thompson v. ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  2. White River Levee District v. ReidharCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2001
  3. Mikel v. Development Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  4. Dotson v. AldridgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API