Kopetsky v. Crews

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 description contained in the deed, though not artfully drafted, provided a means of identifying the dominant tenement benefited by the easement
• holding language in conveyance sufficient to identify the dominant estate even though the deed did not use the particular terms “dominant” and “servient”
• “It stands to reason, then, that if we can identify the dominant tenement with reasonable certainty based upon the language of the deed, we are not required to find a direct description of that tenement in the conveyance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).