Opinion ID: 1789152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality and other statutes

Text: We agree with the City's contention that § 14-56-417 is not unconstitutional per se. At the end of the final hearing in the Circuit Court, the Judge said he thought it was unconstitutional. We do not know if he meant that there was a lack of due process because the City had not shown it had enacted a regulation in accordance with the Statute or possibly that there was no showing that some regulation existed prior to the Vuncannons' acquisition of the land. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,  U.S.___, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798. We decline to address the constitutionality point because we need not go that far. Our holding is simply that the City has demonstrated no authority for what it attempted to do. We also agree with the City's point the Vuncannons are wrong in arguing that Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-68-101 through XX-XX-XXX (1987) control this situation. That Subchapter of Title 27 deals with limited access highways, and there is no showing that Nettleton Avenue is such a highway. Again, however, this error in argument does not cure the basic deficiency of the City's position on appeal.