Skip to main content
· 5/6/2020

Michael R. McElroy v. Edward Stephens, III

Syllabus

The defendants appealed from an entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the hearing justice erred when he determined that the plaintiffs' lot had an easement appurtenant to travel across all of the defendants' properties to access Seaweed Beach because the plaintiffs did not have a \legal means\ to access Seaweed Beach. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had demonstrated a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a proper determination of whether or not the plaintiffs have a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement.

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that PPG testing is a valid sentencing condition and “is regarded as a ‘treatment device’ for diagnosing and treating sex offenders”
  • holding that PPG testing is a valid sentencing condition and “is regarded as a ‘treatment device’ for diagnosing and treating sex offenders” (citing Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 345)
  • involving a second degree child molestation conviction
  • involving a second degree child molestation conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.