6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hoff v. Girdler Corporationgreen1 sentence2024Whether there was an intent to abandon an easement is a question of fact that the party arguing for abandonment has the bur den of showing “by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence.” Ri vera v. 14 Queree , 358 P.2d 40, 42 (Colo. 1960) (quoting Hoff v. Girdler Corp. , 88 P.2d 100, 102 (Colo. 1939)). | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Quereegreen1 sentence2024Whether there was an intent to abandon an easement is a question of fact that the party arguing for abandonment has the bur den of showing “by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence.” Ri vera v. 14 Queree , 358 P.2d 40, 42 (Colo. 1960) (quoting Hoff v. Girdler Corp. , 88 P.2d 100, 102 (Colo. 1939)). | 1 | 1 |
Bijou Irrigation District v. Empire Clubgreen1 sentence1997See Bijou, 804 P.2d at 183 . | 1 | 1 |
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientistgreen2 sentences1995See 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 |
Platte River Power Authority v. Nelsongreen1 sentence1990See Platte River Power Authority v. Nelson, 775 P.2d 82 (Colo.App.1989) on which the trial court relied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kenna v. Huber
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Medhus v. Dutter
green
2 sentences1995See 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 |
Mott v. Stanlake
neutral
2 sentences1995See 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 |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
green
1 sentence1988The Court also observed that “[s]o long as the Commission could not have deprived the prior owners of the easement without compensating them, the prior owners must be understood to have transferred their full property rights in conveying the lot.” Id., 107 S.Ct. at 3146 n. 2. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.