A dispute over a small strip of land in Conway, Arkansas, grew into a decade-long legal battle after a highway project restricted access to the remaining property. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a jury’s $3 million compensation award, rejecting the state’s arguments that the verdict was excessive and that evidence about replacement roads should not have been admitted.A government acquisition involving just 1.62 acres of land has resulted in a multimillion-dollar compensation dispute in Arkansas, highlighting how a small taking can affect the value and potential use of a much larger property. In a ruling delivered on October 28, 2026, the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld a $3 million jury verdict awarded to the William Major Lewis Trust after a highway project restricted the property’s direct access to Dave Ward Drive in Conway. The decision in Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Lewis, published by Justia, affirmed the trial court’s judgment despite the commission’s challenge to the award and the evidence considered by the jury.The dispute began on August 7, 2015, when the Arkansas State Highway Commission condemned portions of two adjoining tracts belonging to the trust, whose co-trustees are William Lewis and Cody Lewis. The land was acquired for a road project involving the widening of Dave Ward Drive, also known as Highway 286, and the construction of roundabouts near its intersections.The commission initially deposited $417,825 with the court as its estimate of just compensation. But the trust argued that the impact went beyond the land physically acquired. By restricting direct, unrestricted frontage access to Dave Ward Drive, the project affected how the remaining property could be accessed and commercially developed.
The dispute was about more than the land taken
Before the acquisition, the trust and its tenant had used direct access points along Dave Ward Drive to reach the property. After the project, the owners were left with alternative access routes, including an unimproved road on the eastern side and access through the old Amity Road on the western side of one tract. The commission maintained that access to both tracts remained available. The property owners, however, argued that the remaining routes did not provide commercially equivalent access to land fronting a major road.That distinction became central to the case. The affected property was near Interstate 40, and its frontage along Dave Ward Drive was important to its potential commercial use. According to the court’s account, the trust said it could not develop the land as intended without building replacement roads. Cody Lewis testified that the City of Conway required the owners to construct a relocated Amity Road and an east-west connector road before they could make commercial use of the property adjoining Dave Ward Drive. The trust said it spent approximately $4 million to $4.5 million on the roads and had to use seven acres of its remaining property for their construction.The commission disputed the connection between those expenses and the taking. It argued that the owners would have needed to undertake road construction to develop the property even if the highway project had not occurred.
Two very different valuations
The gap between the two sides’ estimates was substantial. The commission’s appraiser valued the total compensation at $417,825, using comparable property sales without including a separate calculation for damage to the remaining land. The trust’s appraiser, Diana Thompson, estimated just compensation at approximately $3.8869 million. Her assessment used comparable sales and, for one tract, an income-capitalisation approach that accounted for lost rental income after the tenant relocated.Cody Lewis also gave testimony about the property’s market value before and after the acquisition. He said the loss of access and the need for additional roads reduced its commercial potential. The case proceeded to a jury trial in June 2024. The jury awarded the trust $3 million, an amount lower than its appraiser’s estimate but substantially higher than the commission’s valuation.The trial court subsequently awarded interest on the compensation balance, along with attorney’s fees, costs and appraiser’s fees. The commission appealed, challenging the admission of evidence about road-building costs, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict and the award of legal expenses.
Why the appeals court upheld the award
The Court of Appeals rejected the commission’s arguments. It said evidence about the cost of restoring access can be considered when determining how a partial taking affects the market value of the remaining property. Such costs cannot automatically become the measure of compensation, but they can help a jury assess the difference in value before and after the acquisition. The jury had been instructed that road-restoration costs could be considered only as an aid in determining just compensation, not as the damages figure itself. The appeals court said the $3 million verdict fell within the range of valuations presented at trial and found no basis to overturn it.The court also upheld the related award of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. Under the relevant Arkansas law, such fees may be awarded when a jury’s compensation figure exceeds the amount deposited by the commission by more than 20%. The threshold was met in this case. The ruling does not mean the trust was awarded the full amount it claimed for road construction. Rather, the court found that the jury could consider the evidence when assessing the property’s loss in value.
A dissent raises concerns over taxpayers’ money
The decision was not unanimous. Judge Brandon J. Harrison dissented, arguing that the road-building evidence should not have been admitted in the way it was. He questioned whether the owners would have had to build similar roads to develop the property regardless of the highway acquisition.The dissent also highlighted the scale of the proposed road network and raised concerns about making taxpayers bear development costs that might otherwise have fallen on the landowners. It pointed to testimony suggesting that some road construction would have been necessary even without the condemnation.The majority, however, concluded that the jury had heard competing evidence and was entitled to decide whether the access restrictions caused the claimed reduction in value.
