Legal Opinion

Kadlec v. Dorsey

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 2010No. CV-10-0028-PRPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RYAN, Justice.

¶ 1 We today hold that the mere creation of a roadway easement does not raise a presumption that the road has been dedicated for public use.

I

¶2 The critical facts are not in dispute. Richard Turigliatto owned land north of Tucson, which he split into three lots. A dirt roadway traversed the three lots, connecting to public roads on either end. As he sold the first two lots, Turigliatto retained an easement across them. When he sold the third and westernmost lot, Turigliatto retained ownership of the roadway. The parcel that Daniel and Sherri Dorsey (“the Dorseys”)…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Orme School v. ReevesArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Allied American Inv. Co. v. PettitArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  3. City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Evans v. BlankenshipArizona Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Hunt v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  2. Smith v. BeesleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  3. Gerlach v. Town of ChittendenVermont Superior Court · 2025
  4. Tms v. ZachariahCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2021
  5. Tms v. ZachariahCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2021

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API