Frech v. Piontkowski
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McLACHLAN J.
This appeal concerns whether an abutting landowner may acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational use over a nonnavigable, artificial body of water. The defendants, Carl F. Piontkowski, Florence Baron and the estate of Constance Murray, appeal 1 from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial to the court, finding that the plaintiffs, Teresa A. Freeh, Kenneth Andersen and Amy Andersen, had acquired a prescriptive easement for noncommer ciai recreational purposes, including boating, swimming, fishing and skating over the Obed Heights Reservoir…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Roche v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Miller v. Lutheran Conference and Camp Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Barrila v. BlakeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Murphy v. EAPWJP, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Herasimovich v. Town of WallingfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Finkelstein v. 45 Lake Drive, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2025