Andersen v. Edwards

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that express easement does not grant absolute right to use easement; use must be reasonable
• holding that, although right-of-way was 100 feet wide, easement holder was not entitled to clear the full 100 feet and could only develop amount of land “reasonably necessary” for roadway
• holding that where right-of-way reservation does not specifically describe width of intended roadway and instead merely describes overall width of right-of-way, the easement holder is “entitled to make only reasonable use of the right-of-way”
• noting that restoration costs are inappropriate in situations “where there is [not] a reasonable likelihood that the trees will be restored”
• refusing to consider argument because appellee did not file a cross-appeal and properly raise the issue
• refusing to consider argument because appellee did not file a cross-appeal and properly raise the issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).