Legal Opinion
Hurlocker v. Medina
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided June 23, 1994No. 14890PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BLACK, Judge.
This ease involves two contiguous parcels of property, “lot 13” and “the 2.2-acre parcel.” They were divided in 1957 but were in common ownership between 1963 and 1984. A conveyance in 1984 left the 2.2-acre parcel without access. Plaintiff acquired the 2.2-acre parcel in 1992 and brought suit seeking to impose an easement by necessity on lot 13, which is owned by Defendants. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendant’s summary judgment motion on the ground that the parcels had been divided…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Koonce v. Brite EstateTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Herrera v. Roman Catholic ChurchNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
- Brooks v. TannerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
- Traders, Inc. v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
- United States v. John v. O'COnnell and Jopat Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Campbell v. Summit Plaza AssociatesColorado Court of Appeals · 2008
- Yellowstone River, LLC v. Meriwether Land Fund I, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2011
- Sitterly v. MatthewsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
- Visser v. CraigCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Los Vigiles Land Grant v. Rebar Haygood Ranch, LLCNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.