Matthew Fraser v. Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation

Fraser, 2026 Ark. App. 138 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026) · Arkansas Court of Appeals · February 25, 2026 · No. CV-24-572

Summary

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Matthew Fraser’s trespass claim against Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation because the challenged lighting equipment was located within the cooperative’s easement and was used within the easement’s authorized scope. The court reversed and remanded dismissal of Fraser’s private-nuisance claim, holding that the Arkansas Public Service Commission did not have exclusive jurisdiction over his common-law claim concerning the brightness of the light and interference with his property. The court did not reach Fraser’s procedural argument regarding rulings made on matters raised during oral argument.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court properly dismissed Fraser's trespass claim because the alleged physical invasion—the light fixture and control box—was located within CECC's easement, and the evidence showed that the easement authorized CECC to provide security lighting to the subdivision.
  2. The PSC did not have exclusive jurisdiction over Fraser's nuisance claim because the claim asserted a private common-law right concerning interference with the use and enjoyment of his property. The circuit court erred by dismissing the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  3. The court did not reach Fraser's procedural challenge concerning dispositive matters raised during oral argument because reversal of the nuisance dismissal rendered that issue moot.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the existence of CECC's easement automatically defeated Fraser's trespass claim without determining whether CECC exceeded the easement's scope or abused the easement.
  2. Whether the PSC's street-lighting tariff and regulatory jurisdiction preempted Fraser's common-law private-nuisance claim and deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the circuit court erred by making dispositive rulings based on matters raised during oral argument without requiring a written motion or allowing Fraser ten days to respond.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (11)

  • Blackburn v. Lonoke Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 2022 Ark. 176, 652 S.W.3d 574(followed)
  • Jewel Coal & Mining Co. v. Watson, 176 Ark. 108, 2 S.W.2d 58 (1928)(followed)
  • Diamond K. Invs., Inc. v. 1330 LLC, 2024 Ark. App. 433, 698 S.W.3d 653(followed)
  • Wilson v. Brown, 320 Ark. 240, 897 S.W.2d 546 (1995)(followed)
  • Perroni v. Sachar, 2017 Ark. 59, 513 S.W.3d 239(followed)
  • Edwards v. Edwards, 2009 Ark. 580, 357 S.W.3d 445(followed)
  • J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank, 310 Ark. 342, 836 S.W.2d 853 (1992)(followed)
  • Stanley v. Ozarks Electric Cooperative Corp., 2019 Ark. App. 560, 591 S.W.3d 322(followed)
  • Capps v. Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp., 2011 Ark. 48, 378 S.W.3d 146(distinguished)
  • Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 387, 288 S.W.3d 199 (2008)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…