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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Weisiger v. Harbourgreen2 sentences2025“Intermittent use on a long-term basis satisfies the requirement for open, notorious, and continuous use.” Weisiger v. Harbour, 62 P.3d 1069, 1073 (Colo. App. 2002). ¶ 14 Adverse use of a prescriptive easement is established when the use was made without the landowner’s consent. 2025But “[i]ntermittent use on a long-term basis satisfies the requirement for open, notorious, and continuous use.” Weisiger, 62 P.3d at 1073 ; see also Gleason v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 46, 48 (Colo. 1970) (affirming prescriptive easement based on testimony of “periodic use” from 1941 until 1968 and holding that “[t]he nature of the right claimed is the right to passage whenever passage is desired”). | 4 | 5 |
Gleason v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2025But “[i]ntermittent use on a long-term basis satisfies the requirement for open, notorious, and continuous use.” Weisiger, 62 P.3d at 1073 ; see also Gleason v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 46, 48 (Colo. 1970) (affirming prescriptive easement based on testimony of “periodic use” from 1941 until 1968 and holding that “[t]he nature of the right claimed is the right to passage whenever passage is desired”). 2024LLC, 284 P.3d 131, 135 (Colo. App. 2011); see Gleason v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 46, 47-48 (Colo. 1970) (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress based on “intermittent[]” or “periodic[]” use); Rivera, 358 P.2d at 41-42 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for trash collection and ingress and egress over an alley based on continuous use when desired); Weisiger, 62 P.3d at 1071-72 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement over a mining road for ingress and egress based on use “ten to twelve times per year”). ¶ 11 “A trial court’s determination that a party is | 3 | 3 |
Clinger v. Hartshorngreen2 sentences2011Clinger v. Hartshorn, 89 P.3d 462, 466 (Colo.App.2003) (affirming easement in favor of seasonal hunting outfitters); see also Weisiger v. Harbour, 62 P.3d 1069, 1073-74 (Colo.App.2002) (affirming easement based on use ten to twelve times per year); Gleason v. Phillips, 172 Colo. 66, 70 , 470 P.2d 46, 48 (1970) (affirming easement based on testimony of "periodic use" from 1941 until 1968 and holding that the "nature of the right claimed is the right to passage whenever passage is desired"). 2005Further, “Intermittent use on a long-term basis satisfies the requirement for open, notorious, and continuous use,” and “[u]sing an easement for more than eighteen years entitles the holder to the presumption that the use was adverse.” Clinger v. Hartshorn, supra, 89 P.3d at 465 (quoting Weisiger v. Harbour, supra, 62 P.3d at 1072-73 ). | 1 | 2 |
Westpac Aspen Investments, LLC v. Residences at Little Nell Development, LLCgreen1 sentence2024LLC, 284 P.3d 131, 135 (Colo. App. 2011); see Gleason v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 46, 47-48 (Colo. 1970) (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress based on “intermittent[]” or “periodic[]” use); Rivera, 358 P.2d at 41-42 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for trash collection and ingress and egress over an alley based on continuous use when desired); Weisiger, 62 P.3d at 1071-72 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement over a mining road for ingress and egress based on use “ten to twelve times per year”). ¶ 11 “A trial court’s determination that a party is | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Quereegreen1 sentence2024LLC, 284 P.3d 131, 135 (Colo. App. 2011); see Gleason v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 46, 47-48 (Colo. 1970) (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress based on “intermittent[]” or “periodic[]” use); Rivera, 358 P.2d at 41-42 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement for trash collection and ingress and egress over an alley based on continuous use when desired); Weisiger, 62 P.3d at 1071-72 (affirming finding of a prescriptive easement over a mining road for ingress and egress based on use “ten to twelve times per year”). ¶ 11 “A trial court’s determination that a party is | 1 | 1 |
Martini v. Smithgreen1 sentence2002Compare Martini v. Smith, 18 P.3d 776 (Colo.App.2000)(using the claimed easement *1074 once between 1985 and 1994 is not continuous), af f'd, 42 P.3d 629 (Colo.2002), with Rivera v. Queree, supra (using an alley way for trash collection and ingress and egress as needed was continuous). | 1 | 1 |
Martini v. Smithgreen1 sentence2002Compare Martini v. Smith, 18 P.3d 776 (Colo.App.2000)(using the claimed easement *1074 once between 1985 and 1994 is not continuous), af f'd, 42 P.3d 629 (Colo.2002), with Rivera v. Queree, supra (using an alley way for trash collection and ingress and egress as needed was continuous). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.