{
  "id": 1633345,
  "name": "Leon FLAKE et al v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM'N",
  "name_abbreviation": "Flake v. Arkansas State Highway Comm'n",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-28",
  "docket_number": "5-5782",
  "first_page": "1084",
  "last_page": "1085",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 1084"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "476 S.W.2d 801"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "233 Ark. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1691620
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/233/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. W. 2d 968",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Ark. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1414981
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/192/0127-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2487,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.694531709137515e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4929910971643521
    },
    "sha256": "ada269f212f40fef92a2789a7f35a597e54e4719ef71163e4653702d4b645d65",
    "simhash": "1:1bdf3ec57e4d380e",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leon FLAKE et al v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nAppellants are property owners at the northeast corner of Markham and Scott Streets in Little Rock. They brought this suit to enjoin appellee commission. The property would be affected by the proposed construction of an elevated bridge ramp in Scott Street adjacent to appellants\u2019 lands. The ramp would connect with a bridge across the Arkansas River. Appellants asked that the commission \u201cbe enjoined from commencing or proceeding with the proposed construction\u201d until the landowners\u2019 damages were paid or provision for payment made. The chancellor sustained the commission\u2019s demurrer on the ground that the suit was one against the State.\nFirst, the demurrer of course admitted the truth of the pleadings. It was alleged that the construction will cause a change in the existing street grade, eliminate appellants\u2019 access from Scott Street, and will close Bridge Street which serves the north part of the land. There would be no partial taking of the landowners\u2019 fee estate but they assert that their existing easements of access in and to the abutting streets would be destroyed. It is also alleged that the ramp would constitute a private nuisance as opposed to the public in general. As we interpret the complaint and the amendment thereto the landowners sought to enjoin work contemplated to be done in contrast to work already in process. The amendment to the complaint asked that the commission be enjoined \u201cfrom commencement or proceeding with the proposed construction\u201d until the landowners\u2019 damages had been secured.\nThe exact question before us was decided in Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n v. Partain, 192 Ark. 127, 90 S. W. 2d 968 (1936). The law there pronounced has subsequently been followed in Bryant v. Arkansas State Highway Comm\u2019n, 233 Ark. 41, 342 S. W. 2d 415 (1961). In Partain, the commission contemplated building an overpass in proximity to Partain\u2019s home; Partain alleged that the construction would destroy the value of his property and without compensation being offered. The chancellor enjoined the commission from proceeding with plans until an amount of money sufficient to cover the damages had been deposited in court. We affirmed.\nIn view of the specific allegations recited the trial court should have overruled the demurrer.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Bonner, for appellants.",
      "Thomas B. Keys and George O. Green, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leon FLAKE et al v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N\n5-5782\n476 S.W. 2d 801\nOpinion delivered February 28, 1972\nThomas J. Bonner, for appellants.\nThomas B. Keys and George O. Green, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "1084-01",
  "first_page_order": 1106,
  "last_page_order": 1107
}