Legal Opinion

Frech v. Piontkowski

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 4, 2010No. SC 18400PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  2. Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  3. Roche v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Miller v. Lutheran Conference and Camp Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Barrila v. BlakeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. EAPWJP, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  2. Herasimovich v. Town of WallingfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
  3. Finkelstein v. 45 Lake Drive, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API