Legal Opinion

Neyland v. Hunter

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 30, 1984No. 83-290PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The appellees claim a prescriptive right to the use of a road that crosses appellant’s land. Neither the appellees nor other members of the public had adversely used the road for a period of seven years at the time suit was filed. The appellees contended below that three statutes have shortened the period for the ripening of a prescriptive right. The trial court agreed and held that appellees acquired a prescriptive right or easement. We reverse. Jurisdiction to construe the three statutes is in this court. Rule 29 (l)(c).

The appellees do not claim an easement across…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Patton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
  2. Merritt Mercantile Company v. NelmsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  3. Montgomery v. WallaceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  4. Raney v. GunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  5. Fordyce v. HamptonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Carson v. County of DrewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  2. Johnson v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
  3. Owners Ass'n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen AssociatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  4. King v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2004
  5. Bobo v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006

19 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