Application of Banning

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that in light of legislative intent behind HRS chapter 520, public use constituted a rebuttable presumption of implied dedication
• concluding that in light of legislative intent behind HRS chapter 520, public use constituted a rebuttable presumption of implied dedication
• holding that an easement by implied dedication was not established when the only evidence of dedication was the general public’s use of a footpath for beach recreational purposes on a regular and continuous basis from 1968 to 1988
• declining to apply implied dedication for an accreted parcel of land
• “[T]he acceptance may also be implied by the nature of the public use . . . . In other words, the duration and type of public use can raise both the presumption of the owner’s intent (or offer
• “[T]he acceptance may also be implied by the nature of the public use.... In other words, the duration and type of public use can raise both the presumption of the owner’s intent (or offer) to dedicate land to public use, as well as constitute acceptance by the public.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).