{
  "id": 1723842,
  "name": "Marsh et al v. City of Hot Springs",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marsh v. City of Hot Springs",
  "decision_date": "1966-10-10",
  "docket_number": "5-3973",
  "first_page": "159",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 159"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "406 S.W.2d 714"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1660017
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0731-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 2290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351186e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4741934761447482
    },
    "sha256": "956350586470b7ee3b4750b812847979c36f77d01eccf81ed40d7dd28f387900",
    "simhash": "1:1c4dec7ba8687aed",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Marsh et al v. City of Hot Springs"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn 1942 the city of Hot Springs acquired by condemnation, for airport purposes, the fee simple title to 134 acres of land owned by the five appellants. In 1950 the appellants brought this suit to recover the land, asserting that the city\u2019s failure to use the property for any public purpose had caused the title to revert to the condemnees. This appeal is from a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity. (The record does not explain the long delay in the trial of the case.)\nThere are two answers to the appellants\u2019 contention that there was a reverter. First, in deciding in the first instance whether a taking is for a public purpose the court may consider \u201cnot only the present demands of the public, but those which may be fairly anticipated in the future.\u201d Woollard v. Ark. State Highway Commn., 220 Ark. 731, 249 S. W. 2d 564 (1952). The land now in question is not far from the runways at the municipal airport. The preponderance of the testimony shows that it is reasonable to expect that in the course of the city\u2019s normal growth this land will be needed to permit the airport to be enlarged. Thus even if the present question had been raised in the original condemnation proceeding, when it would have been timely, the court would have been justified in sustaining the city\u2019s position.\nSecond, there is ordinarily a reverter when the public abandons an easement, as for a street, but the rule is different when the landowner has been paid in full for the fee simple title, as in the case at bar. \u201cWhen, however, a fee simple free from any easements or conditions is acquired, either by purchase or by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, if the use for which the land was bought or condemned is lawfully discontinued or abandoned, there is no reversion, and the corporation holding the land may leave it idle, or devote it to a different use, or sell it in the same manner and to the same extent as an ordinary private owner. \u2019 \u2019 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d eel., 1965), \u00a7 9.36 [4].\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. M. Campbell and Farrell Faubus and Julian Glover and Catlett & Henclerson, for appellant.",
      "Curtis L. Ridgway Jr. and Ban McCraio, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Marsh et al v. City of Hot Springs\n5-3973\n406 S. W. 2d 714\nOpinion delivered October 10, 1966\nH. M. Campbell and Farrell Faubus and Julian Glover and Catlett & Henclerson, for appellant.\nCurtis L. Ridgway Jr. and Ban McCraio, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0159-01",
  "first_page_order": 181,
  "last_page_order": 182
}