Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cambridge Holdings, Ltd. v. Cambridge Condominiums Council of Owners

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided August 31, 2010No. 03-08-Ü0353-CVPublished

1DissentDiane M. Henson, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion for en banc reconsideration. Because the type of continuous use necessary to support a finding of adverse possession by prescription of an easement for use as a fire escape is an issue of first impression, implicating public policy concerns regarding fire safety in multi-family residences, this case presents the type of “extraordinary circumstances” that require en banc consideration. See Tex.R.App. P. 41.2(c).

As the panel opinion points out, the nature, intensity, or frequency of property use that suffices to establish continuous…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ben Snyder, Inc. v. Phoenix Amusement Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1949
  2. Brooks, Gill & Co. v. Landmark Properties, 217 Ltd. PartnershipMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API