Murphy v. Burch
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAXTER, J.
This is a quiet title action between owners of adjoining properties. In 1998, plaintiff purchased property having no vehicular access to or from any public road. Because her property is “landlocked,” she seeks to establish, without payment of consideration to defendants, an “easement by necessity” over an existing private road that crosses defendants’ property and connects to a public highway. Under California common law, such an easement requires examination of the circumstances of the original conveyance by the “common owner” that severed what is now defendants’ property…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Leo Sheep Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- City of Oakland v. Oakland RaidersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Kripp v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- State of Utah v. AndrusDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1979
- GRANITE BEACH HOLDINGS v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Yellowstone River, LLC v. Meriwether Land Fund I, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2011
- Shoen v. ZacariasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Sharp v. DowneyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2014
- Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports2011
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.