Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chappell v. City of Russellville
Citations: 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1766; 288 Ark. 261; 704 S.W.2d 166Docket: 85-245
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 24, 1986; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Darrell Hickman, Justice, presided over an annexation case involving the City of Russellville's attempt to annex 4,150 acres of contiguous land, consisting of three irregular tracts in the west of the city, extending to Lake Dardanelle and the Arkansas River. The annexation was approved by a vote of 571 to 210, despite landowner objections that the land was unsuitable for municipal purposes due to its classification as farmland, swampland, and unimproved land. The court dismissed the landowners’ complaint, determining the land suitable for annexation under the criteria established by Ark. Stat. Ann. 19-307.1, which allows annexation if the land meets one of five specified conditions. The tracts include: 1. A tract north and west of the city, including Bona Dea Trails Park. 2. The largest tract extending to the Russellville Boat Dock, with a growing residential area. 3. A tract south of the city containing industrial and commercial sites along the Arkansas River. The court addressed landowner claims regarding the presence of swampland and farmland. It reaffirmed that rugged or wooded areas do not preclude annexation if they have prospective value for city use. While acknowledging some land is currently used for agriculture, testimony indicated that its highest and best use aligns with residential and commercial development. The court noted amendments to the law allowing the annexation of agricultural lands if their best use is not agricultural. Testimony from city officials confirmed that annexation would enhance municipal services, including police and fire protection, and align city boundaries with natural or man-made features. The trial court found that the annexed lands represented the city’s actual growth, were necessary for public safety services, and had potential for municipal use, affirming that prior decisions limiting annexation were effectively overruled. The court concluded that the trial court's findings were not clearly wrong and affirmed the annexation. Justice Purtle did not participate.