{
  "id": 1600830,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM'N v. Mary Raines JOHNSON et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1969-12-22",
  "docket_number": "5-5075",
  "first_page": "911",
  "last_page": "914",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 Ark. 911"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "448 S.W.2d 36"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "444 S. W. 2d 685",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1600551
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/247/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4360,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05992086797338378
    },
    "sha256": "431d12097cfe5cefaee4cf4b21722256c6731ec9f38b9a240ec8c5a4f6a1c505",
    "simhash": "1:6344061d8dcccbc4",
    "word_count": 731
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:29.213565+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Mary Raines JOHNSON et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThe Arkansas State Highway Commission appeals from a verdict and judgment of 45,300 for a taking of 24.09 acres from 334.9 acres owned by appellees Mary Raines Johnson and the heirs of the D. H. Raines Estate for interstate highway construction in Hempstead County.\nInitially appellant condemned 11.06 acres of appellees\u2019 land and by amendment increased the taking to 24.09 acres, to accommodate rest areas on the interstate highway. At the time of the taking, all of appellees\u2019 334 acres was subject to a timber contract covering all timber eight inches and over. Appellant, not wanting the timber cut on the proposed rest areas, contracted to pay the timber contractor the value of the uncut timber. It was stipulated at trial that the before and after valuations would be based on the assumption that all timber eight inches and .above had been cut and removed at the time of taking.\nFor reversal appellant relies on the following points:\n\u201cI. The opinion of Dorsey McRae, appellees\u2019 only value witness, was based on erroneous assumption and not upon fact, and his testimony should have been struck upon appellant\u2019s motion.\nII. There is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.\u201d\nAppellant\u2019s first point is two-pronged, i. e., (1) Mr. McRae valued the property as though the timber had not been removed, and (2) he erroneously damaged part of the property, referred to as Tract 2, as being landlocked because the access wa's destroyed. So far as Mr. McRae\u2019s value testimony is concerned, a careful review shows that he consistently based his valuations on the assumption that timber eight inches and over had been removed. Appellant\u2019s complaint with reference to McRae\u2019s testimony arises out o\u00a3 the following question and answer:\n\u201cQ. This is cut over timber land?\nA. No, it\u2019s not all. No, you\u2019ve got some there that you found a little later and took for a park, which I guess is the prettiest land on the highway, that ain\u2019t cut over.\u201d\nWe do not interpret Mr. McRae\u2019s .answer as being an assertion that he valued the land on the basis with the timber in place, but rather a truthful answer to the question asked. For this reason we hold this contention without merit.\nThe access to the land referred to as Tract 2 had been by a road from the southernmost part of the property, which road was completely severed by the controlled-aecess interstate. Shepherd Road, which was made into an overpass over the interstate, crosses the southwestern corner of Tract 2. The taking in fee included .09 acre for straightening or widening Shepherd Road. The highway department fenced its right of way along Shepherd Road and the. approaches to the overpass. McRae ascribed $2,000 as damage to Tract 2 for loss of access. Appellant argues that McRae\u2019s testimony is valueless because he did not study appellant\u2019s plans and specifications and thus determine that the fenced approach was not a controlled access area, insinuating that the landowners could have access through this fenced area, as .appellant\u2019s appraiser testified. This argument is without merit. This court has recently considered the effect of a fee simple taking on the matter of access and specifically held:\n\u201cWe hold that a fee simple taking under Act 419 [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 76-544 (Repl. 1957)3 places the predominant control of all lands within the right-of-way in the Commission; that the utilization of the acquired property for highway purposes and for such purposes as are delegated to political subdivisions and utilities will as a matter of law take precedence over all other uses; and that Mrs. Wallace\u2019s [the landowner\u2019s] use of the highway for going in and out of her property can reasonably be expected to be affected.\n. . .\u201cFrom what has been said it is apparent that the nature of Mrs. Wallace\u2019s access may well be substantially impaired; certainly the right of ingress and egress was not established as a matter of law.\u201d Ark. State Highway Comm\u2019n v. Wallace, 247 Ark. handed down Sept. 22, 1969, 444 S. W. 2d 685.\nOn the question of substantiality of the evidence, Mr. McRae\u2019s testimony of $7,000 was sufficient to support the jury verdict of $5,300.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas Keys and Virginia Taclcett, lor appellant.",
      "Graves & Graves, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Mary Raines JOHNSON et al\n5-5075\n448 S. W. 2d 36\nOpinion delivered December 22, 1969\nThomas Keys and Virginia Taclcett, lor appellant.\nGraves & Graves, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0911-01",
  "first_page_order": 933,
  "last_page_order": 936
}