Tran v. MacHa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that hostile use “does not require an intention to dispossess the rightful owner, or even know that there is one”
• holding that hostile use “does not require an intention to dispossess the rightful owner, or even know that there is one”
• noting that “when a landowner and the claimant of an easement both use the same way, the use by the claimant is not exclusive of the owner’s use and therefore will not be considered adverse”
• declining to find possession hostile despite existence of improvements because evidence only showed who used driveway and garage, but not who built them
• declining to find possession hostile despite existence of improvements because evidence only showed who used driveway and garage, but not who built them
• noting mistaken beliefs about ownership do not transfer title until someone acts on them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).