{
  "id": 1906070,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Benny ROARK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roark",
  "decision_date": "1992-05-04",
  "docket_number": "91-327",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "309 Ark. 265"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "828 S.W.2d 843"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616695
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 U.S.C.S. \u00a7 131",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-74-405",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-74-406",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a727-74-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 4515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1785080113636452e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5880626631127915
    },
    "sha256": "15abaa1f31e6c08287ba1dd9d6ab43af5e48c81fc0c31516f4e347361f33d501",
    "simhash": "1:592c9c967134f540",
    "word_count": 707
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:54.665869+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Benny ROARK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nThis appeal presents an issue of first impression under the Arkansas Highway Beautification Act, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a727-74-401 \u2014 502(1987 and Cum. Supp. 1991). In part, the act provides that junkyards within a thousand feet of interstate, primary and designated highways be screened from the view of the traveling public unless they are in an area zoned for industrial use.\nAppellee Benny Roark operates Big Ben\u2019s Auto Salvage in Fordyce, consisting of some fifty acres adjacent to U.S. Highway 79. In May 1984 the Arkansas State Highway Commission (plaintiff/appellant) identified and classified Big Ben\u2019s Auto Salvage as an illegal junkyard and notified Mr. Roark of the screening requirements of the act. Some attempt was made toward compliance, but not agreeably to the Commission and finally it petitioned the chancery court for a mandatory injunction.\nIn March 1991, just prior to trial on April 1, the City of Fordyce granted Mr. Roark\u2019s application to rezone a portion of his property from commercial to industrial usage. Following trial, the chancellor held that the case was controlled by that provision of the act [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-74-406 (1987)] which exempts junkyards zoned for industrial usage and relieved Roark of any screening requirement under the act. The Commission has appealed and we reverse.\nThe Commission contends that the chancellor erred, first, in ruling \u00a7 27-74-406 is controlling over Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-74-405 (1987) where an existing junkyard is rezoned to defeat the requirement of the state and federal highway beautification acts; and, second, in finding that an established junkyard prohibited under \u00a7 27-74-405 can become a permitted junkyard under \u00a7 27-74-406 by subsequent zoning to an industrial usage.\nThe chancellor\u2019s findings that \u00a7 27-74-406 is controlling over \u00a7 27-74-405 and that an established junkyard can become a permitted junkyard by subsequent zoning to industrial usage are clearly erroneous under the circumstances. Section 27-74-405 provides that no junkyard shall be established, operated, and maintained, any portion of which is within 1,000 feet of the right-of-way of any interstate, primary or designated highway. However, \u00a7 27-74-406, on which Roark relies, makes allowance for junkyards \u201cwithin those areas which are zoned industrial under authority of the laws of this state.\u201d\nThus the issue presented is whether the appellee can avoid the screening requirements of the highway beautification act by the simple expediency of rezoning his property to industrial use so as to come within the exception recited in \u00a7 27-74-406. We think not, and certainly not in the context of this case. We construe the act to mean that the exemption for industrial zoning applies to zoning in existence on the effective date of the act.\nAmong other things, the Federal Highway Beautification Act (23 U.S.C.S. \u00a7 131, et seq.) provides for the control of junkyards and billboards to preserve natural beauty and promote public safety and investment in areas adjacent to the interstate and primary highway systems. In furtherance of the act\u2019s objectives, Congress required states receiving federal funds to establish provisions for the effective control of billboards and junkyards. The Arkansas Highway Beautification Act was adopted pursuant to that congressional directive and declares that junkyards not conforming to its provisions are public nuisances.\nWe find merit in the Commission\u2019s argument that the language used in \u00a7 27-74-406 is conjunctive, i.e., \u201cnothing shall prohibit the establishment, maintenance, and operation of outdoor junkyards. . . ,\u201d (our emphasis), lending substance to the inference that a junkyard must be established in an existing industrial zone in order to claim the exemption provided for in \u00a7 27-74-406.\nWe deem the Arkansas Highway Beautification Act to be remedial and, hence, to be liberally construed so as to effectuate the purpose sought to be accomplished by its enactment. See generally Yarbrough v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 260 Ark. 161, 539 S.W.2d 419 (1976). In that light we hold the act cannot be avoided by taking recourse to industrial zoning for no purpose other than to escape its modest requirements.\nReversed and remanded for the entry of a decree in harmony with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Treeca J. Dyer, for appellant.",
      "Wynne & Wynne, by; Tom Wynne, III, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Benny ROARK\n91-327\n828 S.W.2d 843\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 4, 1992\nTreeca J. Dyer, for appellant.\nWynne & Wynne, by; Tom Wynne, III, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 289,
  "last_page_order": 292
}