Reichardt v. Hoffman
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MIHARA, J.
Plaintiffs own a house in Monterey County adjacent to a vacant lot owned by defendant. Defendant’s lot is benefited by a deeded nonexclusive easement over plaintiffs’ property for access purposes. Plaintiffs are required to keep the easement “clear” in order to ensure “proper access” for defendant. After years of dispute about the easement, plaintiffs obtained a judgment extinguishing defendant’s easement, enjoining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property and awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages based on causes of action for…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Varjabedian v. City of MaderaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by146 opinions
- Keyes v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- City of Santa Maria v. AdamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005
141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.