Tyree v. Gosa (1941)

App. 560, 563 , 468 P.2d 713 (1970) (15-foot strip); see also Adamec, 63 Wn.2d at 219-20 (doctrine applies only to encroachments of “a few inches”); Tyree, 11 Wn.2d at 580 (same).

See, e.g., Urban Site Venture, 665 A.2d at 1065 (‘“No court has authority to compel the owner of land to surrender his property to another person, lacking the power of eminent domain, in exchange for a sum of money----” ’ (quoting Lichtenberg v. Sachs, 213 Md. 147 , 131 A.2d 264, 267 (1957))); Goulding v. Cook, 422 Mass. 276 , 661 N.E.2d 1322 , 1324 (1996) (“[W]here the encroachment is not for a public use, the taking may not be justified at all.”); Cross v. McCurry, 859 S.W…

Because Petitioners encroached innocently, they satisfied Heaton’s prerequisite to the application of the relative hardship doctrine. {14} In determining the propriety of the trial court’s decision to refuse to order removal of Petitioners’ encroaching structure, the Court of Appeals noted that some cases from other jurisdictions denied ejectment only when the encroachment was insubstantial, such as an encroachment that “projected a few inches on the land of another.” Amkco,…

Tyree v. Gosa, 11 Wn.2d 572, 578, 119 P.2d 926 (1941).

See Tyree v. Gosa, 11 Wn.2d 572, 580-82 , 119 P.2d 926 (1941).

See, e.g., Tyree v. Gosa, 11 Wn.2d 572, 577-79 , 119 P.2d 926 (1941) (holding that the plaintiff was not equitably estopped from asserting a quiet title action); Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wn.2d 523, 538-42 , 146 P.3d 1172 (2006) (holding that equitable estoppel did not bar the plaintiff’s quiet title action); Lauer v. Pierce County, 173 Wn.2d 242, 256-57 , 267 P.3d 988 (2011) (holding that equitable estoppel did not bar certain claims in a LUPA petition).

Accord Tyree, 11 Wash.2d 572 , 119 P.2d 926 .

See id.

Accord Tyree, 11 Wn.2d 572 .