Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cheney v. Muellergreen2 sentences2018We write to address only the first three: (1) that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the notorious-use element of a prescriptive easement; (2) that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the adverse-use element of a prescriptive easement; and (3) that the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the factors set forth in Cheney v. Mueller , 259 Or. 108 , 485 P.2d 1218 (1971) (the Cheney factors), when granting plaintiffs easements by implication. 2 We co 2018We write to address only the first three: (1) that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the notorious-use element of a prescriptive easement; (2) that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the adverse-use element of a prescriptive easement; and (3) that the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the factors set forth in Cheney v. Mueller , 259 Or. 108 , 485 P.2d 1218 (1971) (the Cheney factors), when granting plaintiffs easements by implication. 2 We co | 2 | 3 |
Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLCgreen2 sentences2024Our review of the record using the Cheney factors as a framework for our analysis leads us to conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination that an easement arose “as an inference of the intention of the parties to a conveyance of land—here, the Hatch heirs and [the] DeCarrico[s]—based on the circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance—here, in December 1997.” Block I, 315 Or App at 536-37 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2024Our review of the record using the Cheney factors as a framework for our analysis leads us to conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination that an easement arose “as an inference of the intention of the parties to a conveyance of land—here, the Hatch heirs and [the] DeCarrico[s]—based on the circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance—here, in December 1997.” Block I, 315 Or App at 536-37 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Dayton v. Jordangreen2 sentences2018App. 236 , 245 n. 6, 381 P.3d 1041 (2016) ("[T]he trial court was not required to explicitly address each of the Cheney factors, in determining whether an implied easement existed."). 2018App. 236 , 245 n. 6, 381 P.3d 1041 (2016) ("[T]he trial court was not required to explicitly address each of the Cheney factors, in determining whether an implied easement existed."). | 1 | 1 |
Dayton v. Jordangreen2 sentences2016See Dayton I, 279 Or App at 745-46, 754-55 ; Eagles Five, LLC, 250 Or App at 424. 2016See Dayton I, 279 Or App at 745-46, 754-55 ; Eagles Five, LLC, 250 Or App at 424. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.