Jarvis v. Gillespie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that visibility to claimant’s land use from an abutting public road and testimony from a longtime town clerk that claimant claimed ownership sufficed
• holding findings not clearly erroneous if any reasonable and credible evidence to support them
• explaining that “[a]cts of possession are deemed sufficiently open and notorious if they are conducted in a manner which would put a person of ordinary prudence on notice of the claim.”
• explaining that even if individual acts do not suffice as open and notorious use, “each case must be examined individually, viewing the claimant's acts in light of the nature of the land”
• noting § 462 protects municipalities from adverse-possession claims, provided property is “given to a public use”
• findings of trial court are not clearly erroneous and will stand if there is any reasonable and credible evidence to support them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).