Legal Opinion

LUCKEY ET UX v. Deatsman

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1959PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.

The plaintiffs bring this suit under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to obtain a declaration of the respective rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant to the use of certain spring waters arising on the defendant’s land. From a decree declaring that plaintiffs were the owners of an easement appurtenant in the defendant’s land, the defendant appeals.

The alleged easement arose out of the following circumstances. More than twenty years ago Randall Deatsman, the defendant’s predecessor in interest, and William Monner, to whom plaintiffs trace their title, were in possession of adjoining…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Curtis v. La Grande Hydraulic Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. North Powder Milling Co. v. CoughanourOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  3. POWERS ET UX. v. Coos Bay Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Garrett v. BishopOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Hallock v. SuitorOregon Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Shipp v. Stoker, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)1996
  2. Stevens v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical CenterOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Conklin v. Karban Rock, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  4. Crain v. SiegelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. Portland Section of Council of Jewish Women v. Sisters of Charity of ProvidenceOregon Supreme Court · 1973

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

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

Powered by the Exa API