Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ammer v. Arizona Water Co., 818 P.2d 190.

34 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
___ ¶ 45 (2024) (for purposes of a prescriptive easement, “it is only the use of the land which must be shown to be open, notorious, and adverse.”) ().
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The holder of an easement has only a right “‘to use the land of another for a specific purpose.’” Siler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Factual Background and Procedural History ¶2 “In reviewing the trial court‟s grant of a motion for summary judgment, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the part[y] who opposed the motion.”
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Similarly, “an easement is a right that one person has to use the land of another for a specific purpose.” , ( , ).
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(applying prescriptive easement principles to adverse possession); Paxson, 50 P.3d at 424 (applying adverse possession law to prescriptive easements); Herzog, 148 Ariz. at 133, 713 P.2d at 33
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
The holder of an affirmative easement has only a right ‘“to use the land of another for a specific purpose.’ ” Siler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
The holder of an affirmative easement has only a right “‘to use the land of another for a specific purpose.’” Siler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc. 980 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc. 980 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
see also, Benevides v. Arizona Prop.
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“[A]n easement is a right that one person has to use the land of another for a specific purpose.”
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(“We will affirm a grant of summary judgment on an issue raised for the first time on appeal only if no conceivable facts exist under which the nonmoving party could prevail on the issue.”).
Harambasic v. Owens 920 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Harambasic v. Owens 920 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by