{
  "id": 1633257,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM'N v. William I. LUSBY et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Lusby",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-07",
  "docket_number": "5-5732",
  "first_page": "940",
  "last_page": "942",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 940"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "475 S.W.2d 707"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718991
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597773
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 887",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597806
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0887-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 1011",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636812
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/1011-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636918
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633382
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 Ark. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1734188
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/238/0464-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 3847,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.801,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.78078655242355e-08,
      "percentile": 0.360858104082516
    },
    "sha256": "7e07c6c8b41ff9d3ce6a9a2bdd8c0a3fd1f4bf10d37ca1c975fe4f8c68c06cea",
    "simhash": "1:15ecae266a2cdb50",
    "word_count": 632
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v William I. LUSBY et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis is an action in eminent domain brought by the appellant against appelleeslandowners for the acquisition of 19.06 acres from a 111-acre tract and .72 acre from a 2.42-acre tract for the construction of Interstate Highway No. 30 and its facilities. The jury awarded appellees $22,500 as just compensation.\nFor reversal of the judgment appellant first asserts that the value testimony of one of the appellees\u2019 expert appraisers incorporated an impermissible element of valuation. Appellant argues that it was error for this expert appraiser to attach any significance to the fact that the construction of the interstate highway would require the landowners to travel a more circuitous route between their property and the City of Prescott. The expert witness testified that the appellees\u2019 property joined the city limits of Prescott; that subsequent to the condemnation the county road located south of appellees\u2019 house was severed; that appellees must now travel one-half mile west and one-half mile south to reach Highway No. 24; that as a result, access to appellees\u2019 property is one mile further from Prescott than it was prior to the condemnation; and that the increased travel distance from Prescott would make the property less desirable and would reduce the market value.\nIt is a well-settled rule of law that the alteration of a highway which imposes circuity of travel on the general public is not a compensable damage. Wenderoth v. Baker, 238 Ark. 464, 382 S. W. 2d 578 (1964). However, when there is a partial taking of land and the landowner is inconvenienced by the taking of his ingress and egress to the remainder, as here, that inconvenience is compensable and should be considered in assessing the landowner\u2019s damages. Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n. v. Coffman, 251 Ark. 590, 473 S. W. 2d 873 (1971). See, also, Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n. v. Lemley, 250 Ark. 186, 464 S. W. 2d 605 (1971). We find no merit in appellant\u2019s contention that appellees\u2019 value witness considered an impermissible element of valuation.\nAppellant next contends that the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and is excessive. In support of this contention the appellant argues only \u201cthree areas of unsubstantiality in the testimony of Mr. Brown,\u201d one of appellees\u2019 expert witnesses; namely, (1) the failure of this witness to itemize the after contributory value as to each improvement on the lands, (2) his testimony relating to comparable sales, and (3) his valuation techniques. We deem unnecessary a detailed discussion of these areas since there was no objection or motion to strike any portion of the witness\u2019s testimony pertaining to these areas and, further, those arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n. v. McDonald, 250 Ark. 1011, 468 S. W. 2d 231 (1971); Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n. v. Sadler, 248 Ark. 887, 454 S. W. 2d 325 (1970); Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n. v. Darr, 248 Ark. 730, 453 S. W. 2d 719 (1970); Osceola Housing Authority v. Gillespie, 244 Ark. 248, 424 S. W. 2d 521 (1968). In the case at liar there was evidence adduced by appellees that their just compensation was $22,500. Appellant\u2019s largest estimate as to the landowners\u2019 iust compensation was $10,500. As we said in Osceola Housing Authority v. Gillespie, supra; \u201cThe disparity between * * * appraisals is very common in eminent domain cases * * *. Yet the only rule we can follow is the substantial evidence rule.\u201d From our review of the record, as presented in the case at bar, we are of the view that the evidence is not insubstantial nor is the verdict excessive.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys, Hubert E. Graver and James N. Dowell, for appellant.",
      "Joe M. Fore, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v William I. LUSBY et ux\n5-5732\n475 S.W. 2d 707\nOpinion delivered February 7, 1972\nThomas B. Keys, Hubert E. Graver and James N. Dowell, for appellant.\nJoe M. Fore, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0940-01",
  "first_page_order": 966,
  "last_page_order": 968
}