DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Etz v. Mamerow, 233 P.2d 442.

30 citing documents.

  • 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.”) ().
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
    To obtain a prescriptive easement, “[i]t is only the use of the land which must be shown to be open, notorious and adverse.” (emphasis added).
  • Fiflis v. Cave Creek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Fiflis v. Cave Creek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶15 “An easement is a right which one person has to use the land of another for a specific purpose.”
  • Fiflis v. Cave Creek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Fiflis v. Cave Creek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶15 “An easement is a right which one person has to use the land of another for a specific purpose.”
  • Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • 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
    ¶13 Nonetheless, the Trust asserts that, because the party claiming a prescriptive easement bears the burden of proving all the elements necessary to establish it, see Inch, 176 Ariz. at 134, 859 P.2d at 757, and because a use that begins with permission cannot “ripen[]” 8 into a prescriptive easement, Redmond’s and Pouliot’s use of the road must therefore presumptively be permissive.
  • Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (citations omitted) (emphasis added); , (“The right to possess, to use and to enjoy land upon which an easement is claimed remains in the owner of the fee except in so far as the exercise of such right is inconsistent with the purpose and character of the easement.”); , 753 P.2
  • 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
    An easement “does not disturb the legal title of the premises except as it is limited by the character of the easement.”
  • 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
  • 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
    The mere use of another’s property is insufficient to create ownership or prescriptive use, , without some additional act or circumstance indicating that the use is not merely permissive but hostile to the owner’s rights.
  • Laurence v. Kruckmeyer 605 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Laurence v. Kruckmeyer 605 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Phoenix Title and Trust Company v. Smith 416 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1966
  • Phoenix Title and Trust Company v. Smith 416 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1966
    For example, , , the case turns solely on the proposition that the plaintiff had pleaded title by adverse possession; however the court rejected the title by adverse possession and granted an easement.