easement claim (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

easement claim in Nevada

5 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Probasco v. City of Renogreen
nev · 1969 · cited in 4 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018See Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563 , 565, 459 P.2d 772 , 774 (1969) ("Nevada has expressly repudiated the doctrine of implied negative easement of light, air and view for the purpose of a private suit by one landowner against a neighbor.").

2018See Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563 , 565, 459 P.2d 772 , 774 (1969) ("Nevada has expressly repudiated the doctrine of implied negative easement of light, air and view for the purpose of a private suit by one landowner against a neighbor.").

44

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States green
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

1988A unanimous Supreme Court reversed holding that the United States had no implied right either under the 1862 Act, the doctrine of easement by *23 necessity or the Unlawful Enclosures of Public Lands Act. 440 U.S. at 680-85 .

1988Pursuant to Leo Sheep, the United States retained no right of way as the fee owner of the land; consequently, neither does Puett possess such a right as the current fee owner. 5 Indeed, in rejecting the idea that the government retained a common-law doctrine of easements by necessity when granting the railroad right of ways, the Supreme Court in Leo Sheep saw the power of eminent domain as an “obvious device for ameliorating disputes.” 440 U.S. at 681 .

11988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010 (4) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.252 (4) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.255 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 17 (1893–2025) TX 15 (1921–2025) IL 14 (1895–2023) NC 7 (1907–2022) PA 7 (1890–1982) NY 7 (1884–2013) ME 6 (1843–2020) CO 6 (1988–2024) MT 5 (1969–2025) MO 5 (1959–1992) ID 5 (1995–2018) WA 5 (1987–2018) KY 5 (1970–2024) NV 5 (1988–2018) AL 4 (1909–2014) VA 4 (2003–2025) MI 4 (1935–1981) CT 3 (1994–2016) MA 3 (1995–2023) MD 3 (1972–2012) WI 2 (1924–1993) IA 2 (1998–2000) OR 2 (2001–2018) SD 2 (2000–2023) WY 2 (2005–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check