Ralph Loyd Martin Revocable Trust Declaration Dated The First Day of April 1994 v. Arkansas Midstream Gas Services Corp.
377 S.W.3d 251
Ark.2010Background
- Midstream sought to condemn 60 feet of the Martin Trusts’ land and a 15-foot construction easement for a gas gathering pipeline; court granted possession and set a just-compensation deposit with a supersedeas bond.
- Martin Trusts challenged the eminent-domain action on two grounds: void-for-vagueness of the statute delegating eminent-domain power to pipeline companies and intra-constitutional limits on public use (Art. II, § 22).
- Circuit Court found Midstream had constitutional and statutory authority to condemn for the public use of gathering natural gas; entered comprehensive findings and stayed the order pending appeal with a bond requirement.
- This Court previously dismissed a jurisdictional issue but later affirmed that Midstream would operate the line as a common carrier, implying public use under § 23-15-101.
- The Martin Trusts appeal the decision, arguing the delegation is void for vagueness and the taking is not for public use; the Court rejects these challenges and affirms the circuit court.
- The Court clarifies that, as applied, § 23-15-101 permits eminent domain for a common-carrier pipeline and the public-use requirement is satisfied by the described pipeline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delegation of eminent domain to Midstream is constitutionally vague | Martin Trusts argue lack of standards renders §23-15-101 void for vagueness | Midstream relies on Smith and Linder, asserting the statute applies to common carriers and sets no direct conduct | Not vague as applied; standing issues foreclose facial vagueness challenge |
| Whether the gathering pipeline constitutes a public use | Martin Trusts contend private use; cite City of Little Rock v. Raines and distinctions from Linder | Midstream operates as a common carrier serving multiple working-interest and royalty owners with shared charges | Public use; pipeline designated as common carrier |
| Whether the Martin Trusts have standing to challenge vagueness in §23-15-101 | Trusts urge lack of warning and potential for vague application harms landownership | Statute not targeting the Trusts’ conduct, thus no standing to challenge vagueness | Martin Trusts have no standing to challenge vagueness |
| Whether the decision could be sustained as facially valid or limited to as-applied | Argue facial vagueness and potential for private use applications | Smith held facial validity where applied to facts; Linder and Smith control | Statute constitutionally applied; no facial invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Linder v. Arkansas Midstream Gas Services Corp., 2010 Ark. 117 (Ark. 2010) (public use and common-carrier interpretation of §23-15-101; adopted in Smith)
- Smith v. Arkansas Midstream Gas Services Corp., 2010 Ark. 256 (Ark. 2010) (facial and as-applied challenges to §23-15-101; pipeline as public use not private)
- Ozark Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania Anthracite R. Co., 97 Ark. 495 (Ark. 1911) (public-use concept: all people have right to use if public utility)
- Pfeifer v. City of Little Rock, 346 Ark. 449 (Ark. 2001) (consideration of future public-use demands in takings)
- Kale v. Arkansas State Medical Bd., 367 Ark. 151 (Ark. 2006) (standing to challenge vagueness depends on the challenged conduct)
- Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (U.S. 1923) (public-use analysis influencing state takings doctrine)