King v. Rock
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
CAVANAUGH, Judge:
This appeal is from an order finding that appellees, Dorothy Rock and Russell Brady, hold an easement by implication over the entire width and length of an undedicated roadway. Appellant, Hazel King 1 , argues that the evidence does not establish an easement by implication. King maintains that there was no showing the existence of a boundary road between her property and that of appellees.
The facts found by the lower court, and supported by the record, are as follows:
1. Plaintiffs, Darrel King and Hazel King, are husband and wife and reside on, and own 1.802 acres of land in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Williams v. BridySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Roberson v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Mann-Hoff v. BoyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Tomlinson v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Hann v. SaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Morning Call, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Daddona v. ThorpeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Sentz v. CrabbsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Dunbar v. Rivello, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2013