Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Billingsley
Citations: 247 Ark. 49; 444 S.W.2d 259; 1969 Ark. LEXIS 1060Docket: 5-4941
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 2, 1969; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
In this highway condemnation case, the Arkansas State Highway Commission appeals an award to the Billingsley family, whose land was significantly impacted by the widening of Highway 247. The Commission argues that reasonable access to their property remains after the taking, contesting the claim that blocked access is compensable. The Billingsleys own a 25-acre urban homesite with 808 feet of highway frontage, which includes their family home, pasturing land, and various improvements. The Commission condemned a strip of land across the Billingsleys' property, varying in width from 125 feet to 50 feet, for the construction of an overpass and an easement to modify Caney Creek's channel. Post-construction, most of the Billingsleys’ frontage will have controlled access. Although the Commission asserts that the family retains 75 feet of usable access, the Billingsleys argue that changes in grade, boundary lines, and the new diversion ditch effectively obstruct access along the frontage. They acknowledge the technical possibility of using the extreme north 75 feet for access but claim that overall access has been substantially impaired, diminishing the property's market value. The court finds substantial evidence supporting the landowners' claims of diminished ingress and egress, affirming that substantial impairment of access constitutes compensable damage, as established in prior case law, particularly citing *Campbell v. Arkansas State Highway Comm’n*. The court notes that the current case presents stronger facts, including an actual taking and the establishment of a diversion ditch. The Commission's argument for a change of venue is rejected, as previous rulings have addressed similar motions unfavorably to the Commission. The decision is affirmed.