Acampora v. Pearson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the plaintiffs, who had established a claim for adverse possession, “used the disputed property, which [was] essentially a side yard, as any owner of this residential land would—they cut the lawn, maintained the property, and used it for outdoor activities”
• the plaintiff engaged in open and notorious use by regularly mowing and fertilizing, engaging in recreational activities such as horseshoes, and placing a shed in the disputed area
• doctrines of acquiescence and adverse possession can be used to establish boundaries between lots
• “[T]o constitute a hostile use, the adverse possessor need only establish a use inconsistent with the right of the owner, without permission asked or given, such as would entitle the owner to a cause of action against the intruder for trespass.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).