equitable nature doctrine (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

equitable nature doctrine in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Shoen v. Zacariasgreen
calctapp · 2015 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2019–2026
2 sentences

2026(Shoen v. Zacarias (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 16, 20 (Shoen) [“the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of ‘whatever [a court] deems important,’ even when these prerequisites are absent”].) Thus, the court’s focus must be on the three elements, rather than “a more open-ended and free-floating inquiry into which party will make better use of the encroached-upon land, which values it more, and which will derive a greater benefit from its use.” (Id. at p. 21.) “ ‘Overarching the analysis’ ” is the importance of the legal owner’s property righ

2022“Further, ‘the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of “whatever [a court] deems important,” even when [the] prerequisites are absent.’ (Shoen, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 19 .)” (Ranch, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 183 .) In particular, the case of Hirshfield, supra, has no application to the instant case.

34
Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hattongreen
cal · 1964 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(Warsaw, at p. 576 [so noting]; Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] [same] (Brown *20 Derby); see Tashakori , at p. 1009 [all three “ ‘must be present’ ”].) Contrary to the trial court’s suggestion, the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of “whatever [a court] deems important,” even when these prerequisites are absent.

2015(Warsaw, at p. 576 [so noting]; Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] [same] (Brown *20 Derby); see Tashakori , at p. 1009 [all three “ ‘must be present’ ”].) Contrary to the trial court’s suggestion, the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of “whatever [a court] deems important,” even when these prerequisites are absent.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Ass'n v. McMullin green
calctapp · 2016
2 sentences

2026(Shoen v. Zacarias (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 16, 20 (Shoen) [“the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of ‘whatever [a court] deems important,’ even when these prerequisites are absent”].) Thus, the court’s focus must be on the three elements, rather than “a more open-ended and free-floating inquiry into which party will make better use of the encroached-upon land, which values it more, and which will derive a greater benefit from its use.” (Id. at p. 21.) “ ‘Overarching the analysis’ ” is the importance of the legal owner’s property righ

2026(Nellie Gail, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 1005 .) D.

12026–2026
Hirshfield v. Schwartz green
calctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2022“Further, ‘the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of “whatever [a court] deems important,” even when [the] prerequisites are absent.’ (Shoen, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 19 .)” (Ranch, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 183 .) In particular, the case of Hirshfield, supra, has no application to the instant case.

2022In Hirshfield, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 749 , the owners of adjacent properties misunderstood the location of the property line and each built improvements that encroached on the other’s property.

12022–2022
Ranch At the Falls LLC v. O'Neal green
calctapp5d · 2019
1 sentence

2022“Further, ‘the equitable nature of this doctrine does not give a court license to grant easements on the basis of “whatever [a court] deems important,” even when [the] prerequisites are absent.’ (Shoen, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 19 .)” (Ranch, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 183 .) In particular, the case of Hirshfield, supra, has no application to the instant case.

12022–2022

Where else courts name it

UT 12 (1993–2026) TX 12 (1990–2024) CA 6 (2015–2026) VA 4 (1993–2026) NM 3 (2006–2010) NC 3 (2015–2019) IL 3 (1979–2009) MD 3 (1992–2001) MI 2 (1954–1978) NY 2 (1928–1990) PA 2 (1974–1981) IN 2 (1983–1984) NJ 2 (1992–1997)

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