Remington Rand Business Service, Inc. v. Walter J. Peterson Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party may still be the prevailing party even if it does not obtain all the relief sought
• reviewing evidence of the parties’ intent in 1988, when the property was severed and conveyed, as the “central issue” on an implied easement claim
• describing the standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling that a party proved a claim for an implied easement
• Explaining that, in cases where we do not conduct de novo review, “we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for errors of law and are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by any evidence in the record”
• first and third alterations in original; second and fourth alterations added; emphasis added; footnote omitted
• “Such an easement arises as an inference of the intention of the parties to a conveyance of land based on the circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance ***.” (Emphasis added.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).