Alpaugh v. Moore

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the petitioners’ burden was met based on the fact that their property was bound on three sides by water and on the fourth side by the property of the party opposing the easement
• supreme court rejected the argument that the petitioners did not meet their burden of proving “necessity” because they failed to explore the option of building a bridge to their land

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).