{
  "id": 1669079,
  "name": "Raymond BRANDENBURG et ux v. Olin BROOKS, Jr. et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brandenburg v. Brooks",
  "decision_date": "1979-01-29",
  "docket_number": "78-208",
  "first_page": "939",
  "last_page": "941",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 939"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "576 S.W.2d 196"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718507
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0198-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2671,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.898,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.84268418345553e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7223838146548313
    },
    "sha256": "4f15a1323e01a2d6348323dfd42de4ebe274761278785e71a294c78b8f07bd59",
    "simhash": "1:8e65d1b79bc9db31",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Purtle, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Raymond BRANDENBURG et ux v. Olin BROOKS, Jr. et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nAppellants Raymond Brandenburg, et ux, claimed an easement by way of necessity across property owned by appellees Mr. and Mrs. Olin Brooks, Jr. At the close of appellants\u2019 proof the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellees.\nThe evidence stated most favorably to appellants, as we must do in reviewing a directed verdict, Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S.W. 2d 225 (1950), shows that appellees at one time owned the SW SW Sec. 4, T. 10 N, R 29 W. They sold the South 20 acres to their adjoining neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Pat Kelly. Mrs. Kelly testified that at the time of the purchase from the appellees they agreed that the Kellys\u2019 would have access to the South 20 through the remaining 20 acres owned by appellees. Mrs. Kelly says there is no other access to the property with anything but a tractor. Appellant Brooks also testified that there was no access except across the North 20 of appellees. He stated that because of the natural terrain it was impossible to get to the property across any lands of the Kellys\u2019 except by a tractor.\nWe recognize that there is a conflict in the authorities as to the degree of necessity required before a way of necessity may be implied. Some authorities maintain that a reasonable necessity is sufficient, but other authorities require strict or absolute necessity. In any case, it appears that a way of necessity must be more than one of mere convenience. See 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements and Licenses \u00a7 37. Furthermore, the authorities recognize that a way of necessity over remaining lands of the grantor, created by implied grant upon the severance of land, being appurtenant to the granted land, passes by each conveyance to subsequent grantees thereof, 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements and Licenses \u00a7 95.\nWhen the evidence in the record is considered in the light most favorable to appellants, we must conclude that there was substantial evidence from which the trial court could have found that because of the natural terrain appellants were entitled to an easement of necessity \u2014 i.e., a reasonable necessity.\nWe note that appellant\u2019s abstract of the testimony does not strictly comply with Supreme Court Rule 9(d) \u2014 not being a complete condensation or abridgment of the record. Rather than require appellants to reprint their brief, we direct the clerk to disallow any briefing costs to appellant.\nReversed and remanded.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Purtle, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Floyd G. Rogers, for appellants.",
      "Creekmore & Harriman, by: Marril Harriman, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Raymond BRANDENBURG et ux v. Olin BROOKS, Jr. et ux\n78-208\n576 S.W. 2d 196\nOpinion delivered January 29, 1979\n(Division I)\nFloyd G. Rogers, for appellants.\nCreekmore & Harriman, by: Marril Harriman, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0939-01",
  "first_page_order": 975,
  "last_page_order": 977
}