DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rorebeck v. Criste, 398 P.2d 678.

34 citing documents.

  • Sabino Town & Country Estates Ass'n v. Carr 920 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Sabino Town & Country Estates Ass'n v. Carr 920 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    To prove adverse possession of defendants’ deeded easement, Sabino “had to show by clear and convincing evidence that its use was ‘actual, open and notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous for the statutory period [here, 10 years], and exclusive.’ ”
  • Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    An adverse possession must not only be against the true owner, it must be “against the world.”
  • Inch v. McPherson 859 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Inch v. McPherson 859 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    To prove adverse possession for an easement Inchs had to show by clear and convincing evidence that its use was “actual, open and notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous for the statutory period [here, 10 years], and exclusive.”
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    456, 458 , -4 , -81 (1965).
  • Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Chandler v. Jackson 714 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Chandler v. Jackson 714 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    It is well settled that “in order for one to acquire title purely by adverse possession, such possession must be actual, open and notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous for the statutory period, and exclusive.” -4 , -81 (1965).
  • Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    § 12-521(A)(1) defines “adverse possession” as “an actual and visible appropriation of the land, commenced and continued under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another.” “Peaceable possession” is defined in subsection (2) as “possession which is continuous, and not interrupted by an adverse action to recover the estate.” -4 , -681 (1965): Our statutes follow the generally held rule that in order for one to acquire title purely by adverse possession, such possession
  • Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Knapp v. Wise 594 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Knapp v. Wise 594 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    23; , Gospel Echos Chapel, Inc. v. Wads-worth, 19 Ariz.App.
  • Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Leon v. Byus 565 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Wise v. Knapp, 3 Ariz.App.
  • Kay v. Biggs 475 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Kay v. Biggs 475 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    In a boundary line fence case, , this court, discussing peaceable and adverse possession, said: “We would point out that the occupancy by the plaintiff, to be exclusive, does not have to take the form of any particular type of occupancy.
  • Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Wise v. Knapp 412 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Wise v. Knapp 412 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Suiter v. Kurtz 403 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Suiter v. Kurtz 403 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Sparks v. Scottsdale Mortgage Corp. 398 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Sparks v. Scottsdale Mortgage Corp. 398 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965