Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite England v. Ally Ong Hing, 459 P.2d 498.

40 citing documents.

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, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicat
South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District 212 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District 212 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
374, 378, vacated on other grounds
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶11 But the Trust suggests this presumption is inconsistent with our supreme court’s in which the court stated that, “[u]nless notice of [the] use, hostile to the owner, is clearly brought home to the true owner, such use will be deemed permissive.” The court observed that notice could be achieved either if the owner had actual knowledge of the hostile use or if the
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 174 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 174 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
374, 378 , vacated on other grounds, , ).
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
374, 378, vacated on other grounds
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
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Berryhill v. Moore 881 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
our supreme court held that the mere grazing of cattle over unenclosed land will not support a claim to land based on adverse possession and that other acts of dominion over the land must accompany the claim.
Warren v. Whitehall Income Fund 86 823 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Warren v. Whitehall Income Fund 86 823 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 43 (1982).
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
which holds that the grazing of cattle on open range, “without substantial inclosures or other permanent improvements,” is not proof of adverse possession, and argue that the grazing of cattle on enclosed land is evidence of adverse possession.
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
the court, following the law of Texas and in particular the law set forth in De Las Fuentes v. Macdonell, 85 Tex.
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
The point is made, , and Ogletree v. Evans, 248 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Civ.App.
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. DM Federal Credit Union 607 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. DM Federal Credit Union 607 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Neal v. Hunt 541 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1975
Neal v. Hunt 541 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1975
374, 378-79 , -85 (1968), vacated on other grounds
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
Phoenix-Sunflower Industries, , , Hayward Lumber and Inv.
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Self-Realization Fellowship Church 517 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Self-Realization Fellowship Church 517 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
which quoted with approval from the case of De Las Fuentes v. Macdonell, 85 Tex.
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
Adverse Possesssion § 52b, p. 720; , McVannel v. Pure Oil Co., 262 Mich.
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Ex Rel. Swift v. Tullar 462 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Swift v. Tullar 462 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
the court said: “Although we are not bound by the construction given a statute by the courts-of the state from which it was adopted, we consider such construction to be persuasive.” In McKinney v. Abbott, 49 Tex.