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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co.green2 sentences2000In the context of the reasonable use rule, "[t]he issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis, considering all the relevant circumstances, including such factors as the amount of harm caused, its foreseeability, the purpose or motive with which the act was done, and the consideration of whether the utility of the use of the land outweighed the gravity of the harm resulting." Peterson v. Oxford, 189 Conn. 740 , 745 , 459 A.2d 100 (1983); see also Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559 , 580 , 657 A.2d 212 (1995). 2000In the context of the reasonable use rule, "[t]he issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis, considering all the relevant circumstances, including such factors as the amount of harm caused, its foreseeability, the purpose or motive with which the act was done, and the consideration of whether the utility of the use of the land outweighed the gravity of the harm resulting." Peterson v. Oxford, 189 Conn. 740 , 745 , 459 A.2d 100 (1983); see also Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559 , 580 , 657 A.2d 212 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Landauer v. Steelmangreen2 sentences1991See Landowner v. Steelman, 275 Or. 135 , 549 P.2d 1256 , 1259 (1961); 3 Tiffany Real Property 326, 803 (3d ed 1939). 1991See Landowner v. Steelman, 275 Or. 135 , 549 P.2d 1256 , 1259 (1961); 3 Tiffany Real Property 326, 803 (3d ed 1939). | 1 | 1 |
Hopler v. Morris Hills Regional Districtgreen2 sentences1980See also Hopler v. Morris Hills Regional District, 45 N.J. 1980See also Hopler v. Morris Hills Regional District, 45 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fitch v. Forsthoefel
green
1 sentence2023As this court has explained, ‘‘[i]n the context of an easement granted in general terms, we have applied the reasonable use factors to ascertain its proper scope because it is well settled that a right- of-way granted in general terms may be used for any purpose reasonably necessary for the party entitled to use it.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fitch v. Forsthoefel, 194 Conn. App. 230, 238 , 220 A.3d 876 (2019). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hagist v. Washburn
green
2 sentences2019In the context of an easement granted in general terms, we have applied the reasonable use factors to ascertain its proper scope because it is well settled that ‘‘a right-of-way granted in general terms may be used for any purpose reasonably necessary for the party entitled to use it.’’ (Emphasis added.) Hagist v. Washburn, 16 Conn. App. 83, 86 , 546 A.2d 947 (1988). 2019In the context of an easement granted in general terms, we have applied the reasonable use factors to ascertain its proper scope because it is well settled that ‘‘a right-of-way granted in general terms may be used for any purpose reasonably necessary for the party entitled to use it.’’ (Emphasis added.) Hagist v. Washburn, 16 Conn. App. 83, 86 , 546 A.2d 947 (1988). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Peterson v. Town of Oxford
green
2 sentences2000In the context of the reasonable use rule, "[t]he issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis, considering all the relevant circumstances, including such factors as the amount of harm caused, its foreseeability, the purpose or motive with which the act was done, and the consideration of whether the utility of the use of the land outweighed the gravity of the harm resulting." Peterson v. Oxford, 189 Conn. 740 , 745 , 459 A.2d 100 (1983); see also Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559 , 580 , 657 A.2d 212 (1995). 2000In the context of the reasonable use rule, "[t]he issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis, considering all the relevant circumstances, including such factors as the amount of harm caused, its foreseeability, the purpose or motive with which the act was done, and the consideration of whether the utility of the use of the land outweighed the gravity of the harm resulting." Peterson v. Oxford, 189 Conn. 740 , 745 , 459 A.2d 100 (1983); see also Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559 , 580 , 657 A.2d 212 (1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Swett v. Cutts
green
2 sentences1980The reasonable use rule as applied to percolating waters was held to apply also to surface waters in Swett v. Cutts, 50 N.H. 439 (1870). 1980The reasonable use rule as applied to percolating waters was held to apply also to surface waters in Swett v. Cutts, 50 N.H. 439 (1870). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.