Neyland v. Hunter
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- Patton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Merritt Mercantile Company v. NelmsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Montgomery v. WallaceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Raney v. GunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
- Fordyce v. HamptonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Carson v. County of DrewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
- Johnson v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
- Owners Ass'n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen AssociatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
- King v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2004
- Bobo v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.