DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 424 P.2d 165.

26 citing documents.

  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
  • 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
  • Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    e to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence and, thus, has not shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment.”) 6 CALHOUN et al. v. SMITH et al. Decision of the Court possession are necessarily varied and, of course, depend upon the circumstances of the case,” and the law does not set a “specific time requirement for physical bodily presence which must be complied with in order for a claimant to claim the continuous possession required,”
  • Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Blackhawk v. McComb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Lewis, 173 Ariz. at 192 (“[A] claim of right is nothing more than the intention of the party in possession to appropriate and use the land as his own to the exclusion of others irrespective of any semblance or shadow of actual title or right”) ().
  • 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
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, -39 , -67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & -59 , -59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); -46 , 9
  • Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Ziggy's Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Industrial Park Developers 730 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Chandler v. Jackson 714 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Chandler v. Jackson 714 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • 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
    an adverse possession case, the owner tore down a fence which stood about one and one-half feet inside his true property line and erected a hogwire fence at approximately the same location.
  • Weber v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 617 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1980
  • Weber v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District 617 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1980
  • Kay v. Biggs 475 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Kay v. Biggs 475 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
  • Tenney v. Luplow 442 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1968
    we noted that: “A claim of right is nothing more than the intention of the party in possession to appropriate and use the land as his-own to the exclusion of others irrespective of any semblance or shadow of actual title or right.
  • Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    The Arizona Supreme Court has stated: “In all cases the intention and not the mistake is the test by which the character of the possession is determined, it being prima facie sufficient that actual, visible, and exclusive possession is taken under a claim of right without reference to the fact that the possession was based on mistake.”