Pease v. Whitten

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that State could have, but did not, reserve right of public to use beachfront property when issuing land patent to private individuals
• stating that private property rights are “fundamental, natural, inherent, inalienable, not derived from the legislature” (quoting Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 544 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1977))
• “An easement does not divest a property owner of title, but allows another to use the property for [a specific] purpose.”
• “An easement does not divest a property owner of title, but allows another to use the property for [a specific] purpose.”
• “[T]he right to exclude others from privately owned realty is among the most valuable and fundamental of rights possessed by private property owners.”
• stated existence of easement in general terms implies a grant of unlimited reasonable use such as is reasonably necessary and convenient and as little burdensome as possible to the servient owner

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).