prescriptive easement claim in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Look v. Bruningagreen ill · 1932 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	4
Petersen v. Corrubiagreen ill · 1961 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	4
Schmidt v. Browngreen ill · 1907 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	4
Leesch v. Krausegreen ill · 1946 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	2
McKenzie v. Elliottgreen ill · 1890 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	2
Klobucar v. Stancikgreen illappct · 1985 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988See Klobucar v. Stancilc (1985), 138 Ill.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
Rush v. Collins green ill · 1937 2 sentences 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 35 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess 2014This court has therefore repeatedly held that exclusivity in the context of a prescriptive easement “means no more than that [the claimant’s] right to [use the way] does not depend upon a like right in others.” Petersen, 21 Ill. 2d at 531 ; Leesch, 393 Ill. at 129 ; Rush, 366 Ill. at 314 ; Look, 348 Ill. at 189 ; Schmidt, 226 Ill. at 599 ; McKenzie, 134 Ill. at 163 . ¶ 34 Although exclusivity is clearly an element of a prescriptive easement claim under Illinois law, it does not require, as the appellate court held, that the claimant prove that the titleholder was altogether deprived of possess	2	2014–2014
Evanik v. Janus green illappct · 1983 1 sentence 1988App. 3d 475, 485 , 458 N.E.2d 962, 968 .) Permissive use negates not only the adversity element of a prescriptive easement claim but also that the usage took place under a claim of right.	1	1988–1988

Where else courts name it

NY 16 (1993–2024) MT 15 (1996–2025) SC 13 (1997–2024) CA 11 (2004–2026) ME 11 (2002–2024) OR 10 (2009–2026) UT 8 (1989–2021) ID 7 (1999–2026) WA 6 (2017–2026) CO 6 (2002–2026) RI 6 (2007–2026) IL 5 (1988–2017) OH 5 (2002–2019) TX 4 (2010–2012) MN 4 (2000–2025) MS 4 (1997–2023) IN 4 (2010–2015) NC 4 (1995–2026) CT 4 (1998–2022) MA 4 (2019–2025) GA 3 (2020–2023) NH 3 (1999–2011) WV 3 (2010–2022) NM 3 (2002–2016) MI 2 (2015–2018) NV 2 (2016–2016) SD 2 (2007–2023) TN 2 (2016–2025) MO 2 (2001–2011) PA 2 (2014–2018) WY 2 (2005–2020) NJ 2 (2025–2026) WI 2 (1998–2023) VT 2 (2015–2016)

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