Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteinjunctionhearingmotionburden of proof
defendantstatuteinjunctionhearingmotionburden of proof

Related Cases

Massachusetts Soc. of Optometrists v. Waddick, 340 Mass. 581, 165 N.E.2d 394, 90 A.L.R.2d 1
View Case »
Nassau Sports v. Peters, 352 F.Supp. 870, 70 Lab.Cas. P 13,343, 1973-1 Trade Cases P 74,311
View Case »
Fast v. Southern Offshore Yachts, 587 F.Supp. 1354, 38 UCC Rep.Serv. 1569
View Case »
Anthem Sports, LLC v. Under the Weather, LLC, 320 F.Supp.3d 399
View Case »
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 72 ERC 1711, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1098, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1363
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

City of Little Rock v. Rhee, 375 Ark. 491, 292 S.W.3d 292

Facts

The City of Little Rock filed a complaint for an injunction against Pic Package Store, Inc. and other defendants, alleging that the strip mall property was a common nuisance due to approximately thirty-four criminal violations occurring there between August 2005 and November 2006. The City claimed that these included loitering, public intoxication, and possession of controlled substances. After a hearing, the circuit court found that the City did not establish a link between the alleged crimes and the defendants, leading to the dismissal of the City's motion for injunctive relief.

The City of Little Rock filed a complaint for an injunction against Pic Package Store, Inc. and other defendants, alleging that the strip mall property was a common nuisance due to approximately thirty-four criminal violations occurring there between August 2005 and November 2006. The City claimed that these included loitering, public intoxication, and possession of controlled substances. After a hearing, the circuit court found that the City did not establish a link between the alleged crimes and the defendants, leading to the dismissal of the City's motion for injunctive relief.

Issue

Did the City of Little Rock establish that Pic Package Store facilitated the commission of the alleged crimes to warrant a finding of common nuisance under Arkansas law?

Did the City of Little Rock establish that Pic Package Store facilitated the commission of the alleged crimes to warrant a finding of common nuisance under Arkansas law?

Rule

Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–74–109(b), a common nuisance is defined as any premises used to facilitate the commission of a continuing series of three or more criminal violations.

Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–74–109(b), a common nuisance is defined as any premises used to facilitate the commission of a continuing series of three or more criminal violations.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the City proved that Pic Package Store's premises were used to facilitate the alleged crimes. It concluded that the City failed to provide evidence linking the store to the criminal acts, emphasizing that the statute required proof of facilitation. The court noted that the defendants had taken measures to improve security and curb criminal activity, which further supported the finding that the store did not facilitate the crimes.

The court analyzed whether the City proved that Pic Package Store's premises were used to facilitate the alleged crimes. It concluded that the City failed to provide evidence linking the store to the criminal acts, emphasizing that the statute required proof of facilitation. The court noted that the defendants had taken measures to improve security and curb criminal activity, which further supported the finding that the store did not facilitate the crimes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the City's motion for injunctive relief, concluding that the City did not meet its burden of proof regarding the common nuisance claim.

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the City's motion for injunctive relief, concluding that the City did not meet its burden of proof regarding the common nuisance claim.

Who won?

Pic Package Store, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the City failed to establish that the store facilitated any criminal activity.

Pic Package Store, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the City failed to establish that the store facilitated any criminal activity.

You must be