Smith v. City of Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
648 S.W.2d 454 (1983)
The Little Rock City Board of Directors (the Board) (defendants) voted to change the zoning classification of a parcel of land located in a residential neighborhood. The prior zoning classification of the property had been for single family and quiet office use. The new zoning classification was for general commercial use, for the purpose of allowing a Wendy’s restaurant to be built there. The surrounding properties on the block were residential. The owners of the surrounding properties (plaintiffs) sued in chancery court to have the rezoning set aside. The plaintiffs presented evidence that their neighborhood was largely residential and that a Wendy’s would have detrimental effects, including increased traffic, noise, litter, odor, and bright lights at night. They testified they had relied on the residential zoning of the neighborhood when they made improvements to their properties. The plaintiffs further argued the rezoning was inconsistent with the applicable guide for land-use decisions in the city. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued the rezoning would be spot zoning and therefore inherently arbitrary. Spot zoning is singling out a particular property by rezoning it for use inconsistent with its prior use and the predominant use of neighboring properties. Jerry Speece, the zoning administrator for the city, testified that there were already businesses further down the street from the rezoned property, as well as within six blocks east and three blocks west of the property. Speece stated that because of these other businesses in the vicinity, the rezoning was not spot zoning. Additionally, Speece asserted the traffic on the street of the property was below capacity. Speece further testified that the guide for land-use decisions was merely advisory, and the rezoning was in any case not inconsistent with the guide. The chancellor, holding there was a presumption the Board acted in a reasonable manner and the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, denied the plaintiffs’ petition. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Holt, J.)
Dissent (Hickman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.