Roberts v. Pace
In Roberts v. Pace, 230 Ark. 280, 322 S.W.2d 75 (1959), the appellants' property did not actually touch the portion of the alley the city board had closed, but the closing of a part of the alley adversely affected the use of their property.
The supreme court held that, because of this adverse effect, the appellants were abutting property owners whose written consent was required before the alley could be closed:
It is the contention of appellees that it was necessary only to have the written consent of all the property owners abutting the portion of the alley affected. For the purpose of this opinion it may be conceded that all other requirements of the pertinent statutes were satisfied in this case....
We think however appellees make the mistake of assuming that they have closed only a portion of the alley and not all of it. It is too obvious for argument that from a practical standpoint, and particularly as regards appellants' right of ingress and egress, the entire alley will be closed if both ends are closed. We express no opinion as to what our holding would be if the south end of the alley was not closed.
If we consider, as we do, that the entire alley will be closed under Ordinance No. 2239 and the trial court's ruling, then appellees must fail because all the abutting property owners have not given their written consent, a prerequisite required by the statute. (230 Ark. at 283-84, 322 S.W.2d at 77.)