Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gusheroski v. Lewis, 167 P.2d 390.

42 citing documents.

New Sundance v. Cutler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
New Sundance v. Cutler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citation omitted); see also Spaulding, 218 Ariz. at 203 ¶ 24 (“Although the requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement and title by adverse possession are not identical, we generally 2Absent material revisions after the relevant dates
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
4 192, had adopted the opposite presumption.
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
¶ 17 Paxson countered that the encroachment on Glovitz’s land had been “open, visible, continuous and unmolested” for more than ten years and was therefore presumptively under a claim of right and not by license of the owner
Harambasic v. Owens 920 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Criticized Harambasic v. Owens 920 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Glantz rule, in fact, had been adopted in Arizona a year before LaRue was decided
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
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
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
Rorebeck v. Criste, supra
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
(adverse possession must be “physically interrupted so that it cannot be held to be continuous”); Gospel Echos Chapel, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 19 Ariz.App.
Mounce v. Coleman 650 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Mounce v. Coleman 650 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Brown v. Ware 630 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Brown v. Ware 630 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
England v. Ally Ong Hing 446 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
England v. Ally Ong Hing 446 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
reiterated the principle laid down in Conness v. Pacific Coast J.S.L.
Higginbotham v. Kuehn 424 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1967
Higginbotham v. Kuehn 424 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1967
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
The fact that Suiter’s predecessors in interest also used the 30
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
Rorebeck v. Criste 398 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Rorebeck v. Criste 398 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Mittet v. Hansen, 178 Wash.
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford 206 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1949
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford 206 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1949
Larue v. Kosich 187 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1947
Larue v. Kosich 187 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1947
Lewis v. Farrah 180 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1947
Lewis v. Farrah 180 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1947
This court in the recent case of Gusheroski v. Lewis, Ariz., , held that the ten-year statute of limitation (sec.