Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Larue v. Kosich, 187 P.2d 642.

41 citing documents.

New Sundance v. Cutler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
New Sundance v. Cutler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(citation and emphasis omitted).
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-05, -46 (1947), the trial court ruled that Pouliot “had the burden of proving that the use was not with the implied permission of [the owner].” The court recognized, however, that an earlier supreme court case, Gusheroski v. Lewis, 64 Ariz. 2 The trial court made no expr
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
for the proposition that any use of another’s property is presumptively permissive and not hostile.
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
Herzog v. Boykin 713 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Herzog v. Boykin 713 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
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
Gospel Echos Chapel 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
Followed Brown v. Ware 630 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Appellants correctly state that it is not sufficient that the claim of right exists only in the mind of the person claiming it, La- *256 , but Miller’s testimony at the first hearing on order to show cause in December 1972 is dispositive on that point: “When I bought the land I understood that I or, I have always thought that an ingress and egress meant just that, that they had ingress and egress, and I had to keep it open.” It thu
Krencicki v. Petersen 522 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Krencicki v. Petersen 522 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
our Supreme Court quoted with emphasis from Clarke v. Clarke (citation omitted): “ .
GOSPEL ECHOS CHAPEL, INCORPORATED v. Wadsworth 507 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
GOSPEL ECHOS CHAPEL, INCORPORATED v. Wadsworth 507 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
It must in some way be asserted in such manner that the owner may know of the claim.”
England v. Ally Ong Hing 459 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1969
England v. Ally Ong Hing 459 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1969
we set out the elements necessary to acquire an easement by prescription : “ ‘The burden is upon the party who claims title by prescription to clearly prove by competent evidence all the elements essential to such title.
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
Wise v. Knapp 412 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Distinguished Wise v. Knapp 412 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
This situation amounts to far more than a neighborly act of permitting another to pass over one’s
Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Busby v. State ex rel. Herman 409 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
To constitute a bar, it' devolved upon the State to show by clear, positive and unequivocal evidence that their use of the easement was inconsistent with and antagonistic to the Busbys’ right., Lewis v. Farrah, supra; , See also Kurz v. Blume, 407 Ill.
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
A , in which case the court stated that at the end of the disputed area, roads and trails fanned out in various directions across unenclosed land.
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
Fritsche v. Hudspeth 262 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1953
Etz v. Mamerow 233 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1951
Etz v. Mamerow 233 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1951
that: "It is a- recognized rule of law that where the use of a private way by a neighbor is by the express or implied permission of the owner, the continued use is not adverse and cannot ripen into a prescriptive right.
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