Connolly v. McDermott
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMS, J.
Since the latter part of the 19th century plaintiffs’ family has raised cattle and sheep on a large parcel of rural property. Plaintiffs’ prop erty is physically separated into two parts by defendants’ property. Defendants’ family has owned their property since 1914 and has used it for vacation and recreational purposes, i.e., “to get away from it all.”
A narrow, rugged mountain road connects the two parts of plaintiffs’ property and runs within 10 feet of one of defendants’ cabins in the center of their property where they have their camp. Historically, plaintiffs, on foot and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hannah v. PogueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Bambridge v. WestermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Lynch v. GlassCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Guelfi v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Central & West Basin Water Replenishment District v. Southern California Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Otay Water District v. BeckwithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Hanshaw v. Long Valley Road Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Redwood Empire v. GombosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Hinrichs v. MeltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.