Legal Opinion

Hunnell v. Roseburg Resources Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 7, 2002No. 00 CV 0693 CC; A114411PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Plaintiffs sought various forms of equitable relief — a declaratory judgment, an injunction, a judgment quieting title — to prevent defendant from using a road that connected defendant’s property to Interstate 5 by passing across plaintiffs’ property. Defendant responded that it lawfully used the road under an easement granted to defendant’s predecessor-in-interest by plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in interpreting the easement to permit defendant to continue using the road. We reverse and remand.

The following facts are…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Highway Commission v. DealOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Jensen v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Tipperman v. TsiatsosOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Kell v. OppenlanderCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  5. Olson v. Van HornCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bloomfield v. WeaklandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. Miller v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. Shogun's Gallery, Inc. v. MerrillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. Sollars v. City of MilwaukieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API