Restatement rule in Colorado

13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
Durbin v. Bonanza Corp.green coloctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020She wasn’t saying that the adversity requirement is the same in both contexts in all respects. 15 (1947); LR Smith Invs., ¶ 15; Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124, 1129 (Colo. App. 1986); see Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245, 250 (Colo. App. 2008); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16 cmt. g, § 2.17 cmt. g. 2020She wasn’t saying that the adversity requirement is the same in both contexts in all respects. 15 (1947); LR Smith Invs., ¶ 15; Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124, 1129 (Colo. App. 1986); see Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245, 250 (Colo. App. 2008); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16 cmt. g, § 2.17 cmt. g.	1	1
Brown v. Faatzgreen coloctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020She wasn’t saying that the adversity requirement is the same in both contexts in all respects. 15 (1947); LR Smith Invs., ¶ 15; Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124, 1129 (Colo. App. 1986); see Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245, 250 (Colo. App. 2008); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16 cmt. g, § 2.17 cmt. g. 2020She wasn’t saying that the adversity requirement is the same in both contexts in all respects. 15 (1947); LR Smith Invs., ¶ 15; Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124, 1129 (Colo. App. 1986); see Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245, 250 (Colo. App. 2008); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16 cmt. g, § 2.17 cmt. g.	1	1
Lobato v. Taylorgreen colo · 2002 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See id. at 971 (“Thus, the adoption of the second prong of the Restatement test, which can create a prescriptive right in the context of permissive, consensual use is contrary to our law, and I would decline to engraft it.”). 2020See id. at 971 (“Thus, the adoption of the second prong of the Restatement test, which can create a prescriptive right in the context of permissive, consensual use is contrary to our law, and I would decline to engraft it.”).	1	1
Mann v. Thompsongreen fladistctapp · 1960 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1960)Gudgment creditor only liable for benefits received, not all resulting damages to judgment debtor); Reese v. Reese, 696 N.E.2d 460 (Ind.Ct.App.1998)(judgment creditor liable for benefits received plus interest); State v. A.N.W.	1	1
Fowler Irrevocable Trust 1992-1 v. City of Bouldergreen coloctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Fowler, 992 P.2d at 1198 . 2001See Fowler, 992 P.2d at 1198 .	1	1
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientistgreen cal · 1972 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res	1	1
Aszmus v. Nelsongreen alaska · 1987 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1
O'BRIEN v. Village Land Co.green colo · 1990 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1
Brademas v. Hartwiggreen indctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See Brademas v. Hartwig, 175 Ind.App. 4 , 369 N.E.2d 954 (1977) (adopting Restatement rule and finding the description of property in deed sufficient to designate a dominant estate to be served by the easement); Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Bowman, 81 Pa.Commw. 381, 474 A.2d 383 (1984) (finding description of property in deed sufficient to create easement in favor of owners of adjoining lots). 1995See Brademas v. Hartwig, 175 Ind.App. 4 , 369 N.E.2d 954 (1977) (adopting Restatement rule and finding the description of property in deed sufficient to designate a dominant estate to be served by the easement); Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Bowman, 81 Pa.Commw. 381, 474 A.2d 383 (1984) (finding description of property in deed sufficient to create easement in favor of owners of adjoining lots).	1	1
Wolther v. Schaarschmidtgreen coloctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 comment i (1977); see also Wolther v. Schaarschmidt, 738 P.2d 25 (Colo.App.1986). 1992Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 comment i (1977); see also Wolther v. Schaarschmidt, 738 P.2d 25 (Colo.App.1986).	1	1
Panitz v. Orengegreen washctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1
Ember v. B.F.D., Inc.green indctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1
Erickson v. Laviellegreen sd · 1985 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (32)

Case	Cited	Years
AE, INC. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. green colo · 2007 2 sentences 2024Lien Mgmt., Inc., 2015 CO 32, ¶ 10 ; AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507 , 509 n.1 (Colo. 2007). 11 ¶ 26 And though not directly on point, Colorado case law is consistent with the Restatement rule. 2024Lien Mgmt., Inc., 2015 CO 32, ¶ 10 ; AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507 , 509 n.1 (Colo. 2007). 11 ¶ 26 And though not directly on point, Colorado case law is consistent with the Restatement rule.	2	2024–2024
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Medical Lien Management, Inc. green colo · 2015 2 sentences 2024Lien Mgmt., Inc., 2015 CO 32, ¶ 10 ; AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507 , 509 n.1 (Colo. 2007). 11 ¶ 26 And though not directly on point, Colorado case law is consistent with the Restatement rule. 2024Lien Mgmt., Inc., 2015 CO 32, ¶ 10 ; AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507 , 509 n.1 (Colo. 2007). 11 ¶ 26 And though not directly on point, Colorado case law is consistent with the Restatement rule.	2	2024–2024
Reese v. Reese green indctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2005See Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1960)Gudgment creditor only liable for benefits received, not all resulting damages to judgment debtor); Reese v. Reese, 696 N.E.2d 460 (Ind.Ct.App.1998)(judgment creditor liable for benefits received plus interest); State v. A.N.W.	1	2005–2005
Roaring Fork Club, L.P. v. St. Jude's Co. green colo · 2001 2 sentences 2003And the supreme court in Roaring Fork recognized that those cases “essentially applied the Restatement rule.” Roaring Fork, supra, 36 P.3d at 1236 . 2003And the supreme court in Roaring Fork recognized that those cases “essentially applied the Restatement rule.” Roaring Fork, supra, 36 P.3d at 1236 .	1	2003–2003
Vista Village Mobile Home Park v. Basnett neutral colo · 1987 1 sentence 1998Vista Village Mobile Home Park v. Basnett, 731 P.2d 700 (Colo.l987)(Basnett II).	1	1998–1998
Medhus v. Dutter green mont · 1979 2 sentences 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res	1	1995–1995
Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith green njsuperctappdiv · 1986 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Mott v. Stanlake neutral michctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res 1995See Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 7 Cal.3d 473 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 498 P.2d 987 (1972) (noting that the traditional rule had been avoided by the California courts if its application would have frustrated the clear intent of the grantor); Mott v. Stanlake, 63 Mich.App. 440 , 234 N.W.2d 667 (1975) (noting that an express provision for third parties indicates that an easement clause in a deed was intended to be an exception and not a reservation and renders the traditional rule virtually meaningless); Medhus v. Dutter, 184 Mont. 437 , 603 P.2d 669 (1979) (without adopting the Res	1	1995–1995
Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Bowman green pacommwct · 1984 1 sentence 1995See Brademas v. Hartwig, 175 Ind.App. 4 , 369 N.E.2d 954 (1977) (adopting Restatement rule and finding the description of property in deed sufficient to designate a dominant estate to be served by the easement); Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Bowman, 81 Pa.Commw. 381, 474 A.2d 383 (1984) (finding description of property in deed sufficient to create easement in favor of owners of adjoining lots).	1	1995–1995
Malloy v. Boettcher green nd · 1983 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Simpson v. Kistler Investment Co. green wyo · 1986 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Katkish v. Pearce green dc · 1985 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Corlett v. Cox green colo · 1958 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Townsend v. Cable green kyctapphigh · 1964 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Zurn Industries, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Insurance green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21 1995See O’Brien v. Village Land Co., supra; Corlett v. Cox, 138 Colo. 325 , 333 P.2d 619 (1958); see also Aszmus v. Nelson, 743 P.2d 377 (Alaska 1987) (refusing to adopt traditional rule and finding the Restatement position preferable); Katkish v. Pearce, 490 A.2d 626 (D.C.App.1985) (finding that the Restatement rule is a more enlightened view than the traditional rule); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806 (Ky.1964) (finding the traditional rule entirely inconsistent with the principle of determining the intent of the grantor from the four corners of the deed); Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith, 21	1	1995–1995
Austell v. Rice green ga · 1848	1	1990–1990
Wilson v. Byrd green ariz · 1955 2 sentences 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d	1	1990–1990
Imperial Assur. Co. Of New York v. Joseph Supornick & Son, Inc green ca8 · 1950	1	1990–1990
Dungan v. Smith green nm · 1966	1	1990–1990
Carter v. Barclay green texapp · 1972	1	1990–1990
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Penn Square Bank, N.A. v. Myron J. Palermo green ca10 · 1987	1	1990–1990
Bank v. . Yelverton neutral nc · 1923 2 sentences 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d	1	1990–1990
Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell neutral neb · 1881	1	1990–1990
Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds green mont · 1961	1	1990–1990
Guerten v. Zachas neutral illappct · 1930 2 sentences 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d	1	1990–1990
Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Yelverton neutral nc · 1923 2 sentences 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d	1	1990–1990
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Schmieding neutral ohioctapp · 1940 2 sentences 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 1990For cases following the majority rule that damages must be shown in defense of a fraud claim as well as in support of such a claim, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1987); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Supornick & Sons, Inc., 184 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1950); Grosen Wilson v. Byrd, 79 Ariz. 302 , 288 P.2d 1079 (1955); Austell v. Rice, 5 Ga. 472 (1848); Guerten v. Zachas, 256 Ill.App. 386 (1930); Neidefer v. Chastain, 71 Ind. 363 (1880); Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192 , 8 N.W. 389 (1881); Holland & Furnace Co. v. Rounds, 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d	1	1990–1990
Neidefer v. Chastain green ind · 1880	1	1990–1990
Brochner v. Western Insurance Co. green colo · 1986	1	1989–1989
Western Insurance Co. v. Brochner green coloctapp · 1984	1	1989–1989
Slovek v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF WELD CTY. green coloctapp · 1985	1	1986–1986
Miller v. Carnation Co. green coloctapp · 1977	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

CA 103 (1909–2025) TX 86 (1927–2026) PA 68 (1901–2026) AZ 55 (1953–2026) NJ 53 (1957–2026) WA 49 (1943–2025) IL 47 (1946–2016) IN 44 (1979–2019) OR 40 (1960–2020) NY 39 (1900–2024) OH 33 (1950–2024) AL 32 (1911–2017) IA 32 (1972–2026) MI 31 (1891–2023) DE 30 (1945–2026) MO 29 (1889–2023) CT 26 (1982–2026) FL 25 (1968–2021) MN 23 (1954–2024) MD 23 (1960–2023) UT 20 (1983–2026) WI 19 (1931–2019) VT 19 (1991–2026) MA 18 (1975–2010) DC 17 (1987–2025) NM 17 (1916–2024) TN 16 (1952–2019) KS 16 (1972–2022) AK 14 (1975–2024) GA 13 (1923–2022) CO 13 (1986–2024) LA 12 (1964–2021) NE 11 (1930–2026) VA 11 (1932–2026) ME 11 (1955–2020) RI 11 (1956–2019) MT 10 (1955–2020) SD 10 (1970–2023) OK 10 (1965–2011) MS 9 (1966–2017) ND 9 (1976–2024) AR 9 (1907–2014) ID 7 (1983–2005) VI 7 (1980–2023) WV 7 (1956–2023) HI 6 (1945–2020) SC 5 (1968–2023) KY 5 (1919–2016) WY 5 (1981–1992) NV 5 (1983–2017) NC 4 (1969–1998) NH 3 (1992–2024)

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