Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Faye Hendrix Vickers, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur Ray Hendrix, Deceased v. Gifford-Hill & Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 7, 1976No. 75-1377Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRoss, Circuit Judge

I agree with Parts I and III of Judge Heaney’s opinion but I do not agree with Part II. The road was built by the defendant, Gifford-Hill solely for its own business operations. Large gates were installed at either end of the road to exclude the public but these gates were frequently left open in order that oil drilling operations could be conducted on the property. Because of *1320these operations the cable gate in question was installed. The decedent was aware of the cable, and he knew that access to this road was sometimes denied by raising the cable. It is not contended that the decedent was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
  2. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. DooleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  3. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. PayneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  4. Arkansas Short Line v. BellarsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  5. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942

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