Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Inch v. McPherson, 859 P.2d 755.

41 citing documents.

Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Those using the land of another for the prescriptive period may acquire the right to continue such use, but do not acquire the right to make other uses of it.”).
Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
Thus, the Nevilles conclude that their use of the disputed property as part of a gravel driveway satisfies the “open and notorious” in support of their argument.
Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-39 (1967) (affirming adverse possession when plaintiff tore down an old fence, installed a new "hogwire fence" along the disputed line, and completed various actual and visible acts on the land); -35 (App. 1992) (affirming adverse possession where adverse possessors "laid down gravel for a driveway" from their house to the hedge and "regularly parked their car" on that driveway).
Humphrey v. Swc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Humphrey v. Swc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
As a matter of law, one acquiring a prescriptive easement through adverse use “may not exceed the uses through which they acquired the easement.” see also Restatement (Third) § 7.7, cmt.
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶11 A finding of fact will not be disturbed “if there is any evidence to support [it].”
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wagner v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wagner v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kennedy Johnson v. Payne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Keland v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kennedy Johnson v. Payne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[W]e view the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
Keland v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s judgment, ¶ 2, and will affirm if any evidence supports the judgment
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Green v. Garriott 212 P.3d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Rural Metro Corp. v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Rural Metro Corp. v. Industrial Commission 3 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
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.’ ” , quoting Rorebeck v. Criste, 1 Ariz.App.