Legal Opinion

Raichl v. Horecny

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 12, 1993No. 90-2128; CA A72389Published

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

This intentional trespass action is a continuation of an ongoing acrimonious dispute between the parties over defendant’s use of a road easement that defendant reserved when he sold real property to plaintiff in 1958. In Horecny v. Raichl, 280 Or 405, 571 P2d 495 (1977), the court indicated the purpose of the easement was to provide defendant with access to a parcel of property that he retained that lies to the east of the property that he sold to plaintiff.

In 1990, defendant decided to improve the easement road to facilitate logging operations. In so doing, he placed the improvements, in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Artman v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Badger v. Paulson Investment Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Senn v. BunickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  4. McGregor v. Barton Sand & Gravel, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  5. Badger v. Paulson Investment Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

4 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