{
  "id": 6644019,
  "name": "Floyd KILLIAN and Wife Mary Killian v. Truman HILL and Wife Loretta Hill",
  "name_abbreviation": "Killian v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1990-09-19",
  "docket_number": "CA 89-422",
  "first_page": "25",
  "last_page": "29",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ark. App. 25"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "795 S.W.2d 369"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1629843
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark. App. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139520
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/29/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664840
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. App. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6654777
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/16/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889874
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 17-41-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675854
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 Ark. 1081",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726511
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/256/1081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1669056
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark. App. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6142286
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/1/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888342
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740758
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872652
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 F. Supp. 433",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        2899804
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/293/0433-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 474,
    "char_count": 6521,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8746209434119544e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7267663095415987
    },
    "sha256": "99d965b169d83193728f7f5da8c46e827d005f82597124adfce478adf0085d7a",
    "simhash": "1:8bcb9124333faeaa",
    "word_count": 1094
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:24.429045+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Floyd KILLIAN and Wife Mary Killian v. Truman HILL and Wife Loretta Hill"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nThis is a dispute over a fifteen foot wide strip of land between two adjacent landowners, the appellants Floyd and Mary Killian and the appellees Truman and Loretta Hill.\nBoth parties had surveys of the land in question performed by licensed surveyors, Charles H. Webb for the appellants and Fred D\u2019Aryan for appellees. The Webb survey favored the appellants and the D\u2019Aryan survey favored the appellees. The court appointed its own expert, C.T. Patterson, an engineer, to review the surveys. Patterson preferred the D\u2019Aryan survey and the court eventually found for the Hills.\nOn appeal the Killians contend (1) that the court erred in admitting the D\u2019Aryan survey because it was performed by \u201cunauthorized persons,\u201d (2) the court erred in admitting the D\u2019Aryan survey and D\u2019Aryan\u2019s testimony regarding it because they were based on hearsay, and (3) the court\u2019s finding that the D\u2019Aryan survey was correct was clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. We find no error and affirm.\nD\u2019Aryan testified that he did the survey for the Hills. He testified that his sons Nathaniel, who was twenty-three, and Othniel, who was sixteen, did the initial field work. He testified that both boys had been helping him since they were eight years old but that neither was legally a \u201csurveyor-in-training\u201d nor a licensed surveyor. He testified that their ability as to accuracy was \u201cvery good\u201d and that \u201cthey are just as qualified as the vast majority of people working on field crews in the State of Arkansas.\u201d He testified that he checked their work in the office and at the site, but did not go back and redo all of the field work that they had done.\nSurveying has been described both as an art, F. Clark, A Treatise on the Law of Surveying and Boundaries \u00a7 8 (J. Grimes 3d ed. 1959), and as a science, Gehrig, Hoban & Co. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 433 (Cust. Ct. 1968). Rule 702 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides:\nIf scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.\nWhether a witness may give expert testimony rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and that determination will not be reversed unless an abuse of that discretion is found. Hardy v. Bates, 291 Ark. 606, 727 S.W.2d 373 (1987). There is a decided tendency to permit the fact finder to hear the testimony of persons having superior knowledge in a given field, unless they are clearly lacking in training or experience. Dildine v. Clark Equipment Co., 282 Ark. 130, 666 S.W.2d 692 (1984). If there is a reasonable basis for saying a witness knows more of the subject at hand than a person of ordinary knowledge, his evidence is admissible. Courteau v. Dodd, 299 Ark. 380, 773 S.W.2d 436 (1989). Most courts have recognized surveyors as \u201cexpert witnesses,\u201d Clark, supra. The courts of this state seem to agree. See, e.g., State Highway Commission v. Oakdale Development Corp., 1 Ark. App. 286, 614 S.W.2d 693 (1981); Chappel v. Carnahan, 264 Ark. 444, 572 S.W.2d 141 (1978); City of Searcy v. Roberson, 256 Ark. 1081, 511 S.W.2d 627 (1974).\nAn expert may base his opinion on facts learned from others, despite their being hearsay. Dixon v. Ledbetter, 262 Ark. 758, 561 S.W.2d 294 (1978). Rule 703 provides:\nThe facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or an inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.\nThe test under Rule 703 is whether the expert\u2019s reliance is reasonable. Dixon, supra. In the case at bar, C.T. Patterson, a professional engineer, testified that services performed by survey crews composed \u201cpart of the matrix of surveying.\u201d See also Witkowski v. White, 248 Ark. 298, 451 S.W.2d 749 (1970), and Clark, supra at \u00a7 49. In the language of the court in Dixon, it was not prima facie unreasonable for D\u2019Aryan to rely on field work done by his sons in preparing his survey. D\u2019Aryan\u2019s survey was not rendered inadmissible hearsay by such reliance.\nThe Killians also argue that, since D\u2019Aryan\u2019s sons were not licensed \u201csurveyors-in-training,\u201d the survey is inadmissible. In support appellants rely on the code provisions regulating surveyors, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 17-41-101 through 17-41-206. Those code sections provide for the registration of \u201cland surveyors-in-training\u201d and establish penalties for violations of the Act. Appellant correctly notes that licensing statutes must be strictly construed. See Wilcox v. Safley, 298 Ark. 159, 766 S.W.2d 12 (1989).\nAssuming that D\u2019Aryan\u2019s sons were required to be licensed as \u201cland surveyors-in-training,\u201d we cannot agree that this renders the survey itself inadmissible as evidence. The strength or lack of strength of the evidence on which an expert\u2019s opinion is based goes to the weight and credibility, rather than to the admissibility, of the opinion in evidence. See Higgs v. Hodges, 16 Ark. App. 146, 697 S.W.2d 943 (1985). Where the testimony shows a questionable basis for the opinion of the expert, the issue becomes one of credibility for the fact finder, rather than a question of law. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America, 265 Ark. 417, 579 S.W.2d 587 (1979).\nFinally, appellants argue that greater credibility should be given to the Webb survey. Matters of credibility are for the trial court to determine. Lopez v. State, 29 Ark. App. 145, 778 S.W.2d 641 (1989). The location of a boundary is a question of fact and we must affirm the decree unless the chancellor\u2019s finding is clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Rabjohn v. Ashcraft, 252 Ark. 565, 480 S.W.2d 138 (1972). In the case at bar C.T. Patterson, the engineer, explained why he thought the D\u2019Aryan survey was more likely correct. We cannot say that the trial court\u2019s finding in accordance with Patterson\u2019s opinion was clearly against a preponderance of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nCooper and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin J. Alford, for appellant.",
      "No brief filed."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Floyd KILLIAN and Wife Mary Killian v. Truman HILL and Wife Loretta Hill\nCA 89-422\n795 S.W.2d 369\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered September 19, 1990\nEdwin J. Alford, for appellant.\nNo brief filed."
  },
  "file_name": "0025-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 53
}