Legal Opinion

Holden v. Carmean

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 19, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

Appellee Rogoski owns a portion of the lot forming the southeast corner of Markham and Pulaski Streets, in the city of Little Rock, and appellant owns the remainder. Some years ago the city opened up Pulaski Street so that it ran at a right angle into Markham Street, and in so doing it became necessary to excavate Pulaski Street to lower it to the grade of Markham. Little Rock v. Holden, 124 Ark. 599, 186 S. W. 293. The case cited involved the identical property here in litigation.

• The excavation of Pulaski Street left the lot owned by .Rogoski and appellant, about ten feet above the grade…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fitz Simons & Connell Co. v. Braun & FittsIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Sowers v. McManusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. Rafferty v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Stout Lumber Company v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Giem v. Williams, AdministratrixSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  2. Benton Gravel Company v. WrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  3. Carroll-Boone Water District v. M. & P. Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  4. Stevens v. Missouri Pacific Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
  5. Wenderoth v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964

3 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