Legal Opinion · Concurrence

King v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided February 25, 2004No. CA 03-451Published

1ConcurrenceSam Bird, Judge

I agree that this case should be affirmed on direct appeal for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion. I also agree that the case should be reversed on cross-appeal, but I disagree that such reversal should be based, as the majority opinion holds, on the failure of the cross-appellee (King) to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence on the issue of his entitlement to a prescriptive easement across Powell’s land. King, who was the defendant/counter-claimant below, raised the prescriptive-easement issue in a counterclaim against Powell. As the counter-claimant and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Baughman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  2. Bank of Eureka Springs v. EvansSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  3. Pettus v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  4. Willson Safety Products v. EschenbrennerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
  5. Mikel v. HubbardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994

2 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