Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. GFM, LLC

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided September 11, 2013No. CV-13-29PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge.

hln this boundary-line dispute, appellants Cecil James Reynolds, Donna Reynolds, and Cecil J. Reynolds, Sr. (collectively “the Reynoldses”), appeal the decree entered by the Independence County Circuit Court, finding in favor of appellee GFM, LLC (GFM).1 The trial court found that (1) the Reynoldses failed to prove that a fence line on GFM’s property was a boundary by acquiescence, and (2) GFM was entitled to a prescriptive easement in a road on the Reynoldses’ property. On appeal, the Reynoldses challenge both findings, contending that the trial court clearly erred in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Strother v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2011
  2. Boyster v. ShoemakeCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2008
  3. Roberts v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2011
  4. Acuna v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2012

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Parkerson v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2013
  2. Whitecotton v. OwenCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016
  3. Clark v. CaughronCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017
  4. Shawn Smith, and the Following Lands Located in Newton County, Arkansas to Wit: All That Part of the se/sw in Section 10, Township 16 North, Range 20 West, Lying North of the Existing Fence v. Arnold and Rachel Bowser, Husband and WifeCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2020
  5. Eifling v. Southbend, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016

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