6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Englewood v. Burlington Ditch, Reservoir & Land Co.green1 sentence2026“At its core, subordination ‘is essentially a matter of status between parties’ and ‘establishes priorities between those parties by some means other than the automatic or statutory scheme.’” City of Englewood v. Burlington Ditch, Reservoir & Land Co., 235 P.3d 1061, 1068 (Colo. 2010) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Horse Creek Ranchesgreen1 sentence2025See Wright v. Horse Creek Ranches, 697 P.2d 384, 388 (Colo. 1984) (explaining that “[t]he extent of an easement created by prescription is fixed by the use through which it was created”) (quoting Restatement of Property § 477 (1944)). | 1 | 1 |
Trask v. Noziskogreen1 sentence2021Trask v. Nozisko , 134 P.3d 544, 553 ( Colo. App. 2006 ) . ¶20 The elements of a prescriptive easement claim are not the same as those comprising an adverse possession claim. | 1 | 1 |
Lobato v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2021In Colorado, " [a] n easement by prescription is established when the prescriptive use is: 1) open or notorious, 2) continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and 3) the use was either a) adverse or b) pursuant to an attempted, but ineffective grant." Lobato v. Taylor , 71 P.3d 938, 950 ( Colo. 2002 ) ; see also Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 2.17 cmt. j ( 2000 ) ( noting that a servitude can be acquired by prescription only if the adverse use is not interrupted prior to the end of the prescriptive period) . ¶21 Thus, unlike a claim of title by advers | 1 | 1 |
Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranchgreen1 sentence2014See Kuntz, § 18.2, at 6. 117 Nor are we persuaded that granting Maralex standing to pursue a prescriptive easement claim will raise the concerns recognized by our supreme court in Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranch, 643 P.2d 519, 522 (Colo.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Cramergreen1 sentence2014We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in determining that Maralex lacked standing to maintain an action for a prescriptive easement based on landlord-tenant law. 112 The "fundamental purpose of an oil and gas lease is to provide for the exploration, development, production, and operation of the property for the mutual benefit of the lessor and lessee." Davis v. Cramer, 808 P.2d 358, 360 (Colo.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Olson v. Hillside Community Church, S.B.C.
green
1 sentence2005Plaintiffs appealed, and a division of this court affirmed the trial court order in part and reversed in part in Olson v. Hillside Community Church, 42 P.3d 52 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lobato v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2002Lobato, 13 P.3d at 834 . 2002Lobato, 13 P.3d at 834 . | 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.