Shors v. Branch

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 gate that blocked access to a river was a continuing tort because the gate easily could have been removed
• each day a gate obstructed free use of their easement, plaintiffs obtained a new cause of action
• each day a gate obstructed free use of their easement, plaintiffs obtained a new cause of action
• “In a continuing tort, recovery may be had for damages accruing within the statutory period preceding commencement of the action.”
• installation of metal, locked gate across access road did not extinguish easement rights by adverse possession, where access to easement on foot, snowmobile or motorcycle could be achieved by going around the gate
• interference with plaintiff’s access to real 14 property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).