Winterland v. Winterland

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing utility installation; \extent of a way of necessity is a way such as is required for the complete and beneficial use of the land to which such way is impliedly attached\
• allowing utility installation; \extent of a way of necessity is a way such as is required for the complete and beneficial use of the land to which such way is impliedly attached\
• granting utility access over easement by necessity under public policy rationale, recognizing that ‘‘[e]lectricity is largely used for power and light . . . and that its use contributes to the full and profitable enjoyment of a [property] can hardly be doubted’’
• easement for “farm crossings” included installation of underground conduit for the purpose of supplying electricity to farm
• gas company did not need landowner's consent to install pipeline in county right-of-way and landowner did not suffer any legal damages from such installation
• \farm crossing\ easement includes right to install power line

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Winterland v. Winterland

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Winterland v. Winterland
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1944-02-29