Galbreath, Stewart & Co. v. Davidson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[t]here is clear consensus that recreational trail use is fundamentally different in nature than railroad use”
• “We find that trail use is outside the scope of the easement granted by the 1875 Act, irrespective of the existence of railbanking.”
• “[W]e have no need to address the contingent issue of abandonment. Moreover, Plaintiff no longer relies on abandonment.”
• “We find that trail use is outside the scope of the easement granted . . . irrespective of the existence of railbanking.”
• “We find that trail use is outside the scope of the easement granted ... irrespective of the existence of railbank-ing.”
• “Since we have determined that trail use exceeds the scope of the easement, we have no need to address the contingent issue of abandonment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).