In Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Benson, 319 Ark. 68, 889 S.W.2d 756 (1994), the Court heard a second appeal of a case it had remanded the previous year. In the first appeal, the court held that Carroll Electric had a right to an easement over part of Benson's property for the purpose of extending power lines. The case was remanded to allow the chancellor to decide whether the route chosen for the lines was reasonable. Upon remand, the chancellor found that the route would be reasonable if the lines were placed underground. Carroll Electric appealed on the ground that the chancellor had exceeded the scope of the remand. The supreme court agreed that the chancellor's decision that the lines would have to be placed underground exceeded the original mandate.