Legal Opinion

Lammey v. Eckel

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 3, 1998No. CA 97-1400PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge.

This case involves a boundary dispute between adjoining landowners. Appellants claim that two boundaries between their property and appellees’ were established through either adverse possession, boundary by agreement, or the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. The chancellor found that appellants had failed to establish boundary line by acquiescence or adverse possession and that a 1996 survey commissioned by appellees accurately established the boundary lines. We find no error and affirm.

Appellants and appellees are next-door neighbors in the town of Garfield.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jennings v. BurfordCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1997
  2. Gregory v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  3. Summers v. DietschCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1993
  4. Rabjohn v. AshcraftSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
  5. Seidenstricker v. HoltzendorffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hedger Bros. Cement & Materials, Inc. v. StumpCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2000
  2. McWilliams v. SchmidtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2001
  3. Clark v. CasebierCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2005
  4. Ward v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1999
  5. Hodges v. CannonCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1999

11 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