11 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dartnell v. Bidwellgreen2 sentences2016Although “one or two” incidents over a period of time do not establish adversity, Lyons, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 30 , 804 A.2d 364 , a single act of nonacquiescence does interrupt a prescriptive easement claim, see Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916). 2016Although “one or two” incidents over a period of time do not establish adversity, Lyons, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 30 , 804 A.2d 364 , a single act of nonacquiescence does interrupt a prescriptive easement claim, see Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916). | 3 | 3 |
Lyons v. Baptist School of Christian Traininggreen2 sentences2016Although “one or two” incidents over a period of time do not establish adversity, Lyons, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 30 , 804 A.2d 364 , a single act of nonacquiescence does interrupt a prescriptive easement claim, see Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916). 2016Although “one or two” incidents over a period of time do not establish adversity, Lyons, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 30 , 804 A.2d 364 , a single act of nonacquiescence does interrupt a prescriptive easement claim, see Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916). | 1 | 3 |
Glidden v. Beldengreen2 sentences2010We further held that “[w]hen parties have a familial relationship, there must be clear proof of hostility and actual notice to the true owner to satisfy the hostility requirement and transfer title by adverse possession.” Id. ¶ 13, 955 A.2d at 255 . [¶ 21] Contrary to the Whites’ contention that the element of “hostility,” which was at the heart of our analysis in Hamlin , is not an element of a prescriptive easement claim, the element of hostili *684 ty is present in prescriptive easement law, characterized as “adversity’ in the “a claim of right adverse to the owner” element. 8 See Jordan, 2 2002This means that in most cases permission becomes the defense to a prescriptive easement claim. 7 Glidden, 684 A.2d at 1318 n. 21. | 1 | 3 |
Jordan v. Sheagreen2 sentences2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites 2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites | 1 | 2 |
Androkites v. Whitegreen2 sentences2014The court entered a judgment for the Riffles on the prescriptive easement claim after finding that, before 1994, they had established all elements necessary to the cause of action: “(1) continuous use for at least twenty years; (2) under a claim of right adverse to the owner; (3) with the owner’s knowledge and acquiescence, or with a use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed.” Androkites, 2010 ME 133, ¶ 14 , 10 A.3d 677 ; see also 14 M.R.S. § 812 (2013) (establishing the twenty-year prescriptive period for continuous use). 2014The court entered a judgment for the Riffles on the prescriptive easement claim after finding that, before 1994, they had established all elements necessary to the cause of action: “(1) continuous use for at least twenty years; (2) under a claim of right adverse to the owner; (3) with the owner’s knowledge and acquiescence, or with a use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed.” Androkites, 2010 ME 133, ¶ 14 , 10 A.3d 677 ; see also 14 M.R.S. § 812 (2013) (establishing the twenty-year prescriptive period for continuous use). | 1 | 2 |
Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkportgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2014 ME 139, ¶ 29 , 106 A.3d 1099 ; Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 19 , 804 A.2d 364 . [¶ 33] The court properly applied prescriptive easement law, and the court’s finding of each element of the prescriptive easement claim by a preponderance of the evidence is supported by competent record evidence. 2016See, e.g., Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2014 ME 139, ¶ 29 , 106 A.3d 1099 ; Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 19 , 804 A.2d 364 . [¶ 33] The court properly applied prescriptive easement law, and the court’s finding of each element of the prescriptive easement claim by a preponderance of the evidence is supported by competent record evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Lamson v. Cotegreen2 sentences2011See Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109, ¶ 20 , 775 A.2d 1134, 1139 (stating that a prescriptive easement claim was "not ripe for adjudication until an owner of the land in dispute is declared”). 17 . 2011See Lamson v. Cote, 2001 ME 109, ¶ 20 , 775 A.2d 1134, 1139 (stating that a prescriptive easement claim was "not ripe for adjudication until an owner of the land in dispute is declared”). 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Stickney v. City of Sacogreen2 sentences2004“Acquiescence implies passive assent or submission to that use, as distinguished from the granting of a license or permission given with the intention that the licensee’s use may continue only as long as the owner continues to consent to it.” Stickney, 2001 ME 69 , J 23, 770 A.2d at 602 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). 2004“Acquiescence implies passive assent or submission to that use, as distinguished from the granting of a license or permission given with the intention that the licensee’s use may continue only as long as the owner continues to consent to it.” Stickney, 2001 ME 69 , J 23, 770 A.2d at 602 (citation and internal punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman Partnershipgreen2 sentences2002Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916); cf. Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P'ship, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 14 , 733 A.2d 984, 991-92 (stating that adverse possession requires “disseisin; that is, exclusive possession of another’s land with intent to claim title”). 2002Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 745 (1916); cf. Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P'ship, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 14 , 733 A.2d 984, 991-92 (stating that adverse possession requires “disseisin; that is, exclusive possession of another’s land with intent to claim title”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc. v. Gables Real Estate LLC
green
2 sentences2024Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc. v. Gables Real Estate LLC, 2016 ME 114 , 99 22-25, 145 A.3d 1024 :! 2024Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc. v. Gables Real Estate LLC, 2016 ME 114 , 99 22-25, 145 A.3d 1024 :! | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Eaton v. Town of Wells
green
2 sentences2011They argue that the court clearly erred in finding otherwise. [¶78] To establish an easement by prescription, “[t]he party asserting the easement must prove (1) continuous use (2) for at least 20 years (3) under a claim of right adverse to the owner, (4) with his knowledge and acquiescence, or (5) a use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed.” Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32 , 760 A.2d at 244 . [¶ 79] Although only a subset of the J-Lot owners claimed prescriptive rights in the upland of Lot J-46, the court treated all of the J-Lot owners as a 2011They argue that the court clearly erred in finding otherwise. [¶78] To establish an easement by prescription, “[t]he party asserting the easement must prove (1) continuous use (2) for at least 20 years (3) under a claim of right adverse to the owner, (4) with his knowledge and acquiescence, or (5) a use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be presumed.” Eaton, 2000 ME 176, ¶ 32 , 760 A.2d at 244 . [¶ 79] Although only a subset of the J-Lot owners claimed prescriptive rights in the upland of Lot J-46, the court treated all of the J-Lot owners as a | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Beal v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2011Indemnification [¶ 39] Muther and Woods, as third-party plaintiffs, contend that there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Association breached the indemnification provision of the settlement agreement because the present suit arises from “an act or omission arising from the conduct of the [Association].” Specifically, Muther and Woods argue that the J-Lot owners’ present claim for a prescriptive easement arises from the Association’s failure to prevent its members from filing further lawsuits after it represented that it had authority to bind its members to the settle 2011Indemnification [¶ 39] Muther and Woods, as third-party plaintiffs, contend that there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Association breached the indemnification provision of the settlement agreement because the present suit arises from “an act or omission arising from the conduct of the [Association].” Specifically, Muther and Woods argue that the J-Lot owners’ present claim for a prescriptive easement arises from the Association’s failure to prevent its members from filing further lawsuits after it represented that it had authority to bind its members to the settle | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hamlin v. Niedner
green
2 sentences2010Specifically, the Whites argue that the court erroneously extended the holding concerning adverse possession in Hamlin v. Niedner, 2008 ME 130 , 955 A.2d 251 , to impose upon them the burden of proving adversity as between White and previous owners of the Androkites Property, because the owners involved were family members. [¶ 11] The Whites argue that hostility or adversity, which they suggest implicates “the necessity of airing family laundry,” has never been an element of a prescriptive easement claim and that there is no precedent for placing the burden of proof on them in this matter. 2010Specifically, the Whites argue that the court erroneously extended the holding concerning adverse possession in Hamlin v. Niedner, 2008 ME 130 , 955 A.2d 251 , to impose upon them the burden of proving adversity as between White and previous owners of the Androkites Property, because the owners involved were family members. [¶ 11] The Whites argue that hostility or adversity, which they suggest implicates “the necessity of airing family laundry,” has never been an element of a prescriptive easement claim and that there is no precedent for placing the burden of proof on them in this matter. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie
green
2 sentences2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites 2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sandmaier v. Tahoe Development Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites 2010Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 5 , 887 A.2d at 518 ; accord Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22 , 791 A.2d at 122 ; Town of Kittery v. MacKenzie, 2001 ME 170, ¶ 15 , 785 A.2d 1251, 1255-56 ; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 230 , 98 A. 743, 744 (1916). *682 [¶ 15] The first element, continuous use for at least twenty years, is not in dispute. 5 For purposes of our analysis, we also assume that the third element of the prescriptive easement analysis was established. 6 What remains in dispute is the second element: whether White’s and other family members’ use of the Shore Path over what is now the Androkites | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2002Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME 175, ¶ 14 , 714 A.2d 809, 814 . 2002Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME 175, ¶ 14 , 714 A.2d 809, 814 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
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.