Legal Opinion
Hewitt v. Meaney
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 21, 1986No. H000948PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AGLIANO, P. J.
I
Plaintiffs Leland and Barrie Hewitt appeal from a judgment denying their claim of an easement or way of necessity across the property of defendants Edith Meaney and County Bank & Trust as trustee of the Daniel Meaney and Edith Meaney Family Trust. We affirm for the following reasons.
II
The facts are essentially undisputed: Plaintiffs’ 72-acre parcel borders the southside of defendants’ 78-acre parcel in rough, hilly terrain in Bonny Doon, Santa Cruz County; defendants’ property borders on a public road while plaintiffs have no access.
The Hansens brought the two parcels…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Primm v. PrimmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Scott v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Fristoe v. DrapeauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Berkeley Development Corp. v. HutzlerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1976
- Clejan v. ReismanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Xebec Development Partners, Ltd. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Herrera v. Roman Catholic ChurchNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
- Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Jackson v. NashNevada Supreme Court · 1993
- Roemer v. PappasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.