Schultz v. Kant

How courts have described this case

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

• “the establishment of a prescriptive easement is almost always a question of fact, especially with regard to whether the use is adverse or permissive”
• all of which recognize that adversity may be presumed in the context of a prescriptive easement claim
• evidence proved that defendant must have been aware of plaintiffs’ use of the contested parcel
• landowner’s contention that use of road was permissive because the land was vacant and unenclosed failed where landowner could not prove that the land was vacant and unenclosed
• “Based on the evidence presented to the trial court, we believe the first use of the way was not shown and, therefore, the facts admitted of a presumption that plaintiffs’ use was adverse and not permissive.”
• where the defendant challenged the adequacy of the evidence as to only certain elements to establish a prescriptive easement, the court of review assumed the defendant did not disagree with the trial court’s findings of the remaining elements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).