Legal Opinion

Povolny v. Totzke

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided July 29, 2003No. 02-3011PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOOVER, PJ.

¶ 1. James and Deborah Povolny appeal a judgment that held the town road, over which their easement by necessity crosses, had been abandoned. As a result of the judgment, the road is discontinued and therefore governed by the easement, which is limited to personal and agricultural uses. The Povol-nys contend that the road has been continuously used. Thus, it has not been entirely abandoned and cannot be deemed discontinued. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Background

¶ 2. The Povolnys own a landlocked parcel that abuts James and Dawn Totzkes 1 land. The Povolnys purchased their…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. WollmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Cohn v. Town of RandallCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  3. Ide v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Young v. MareschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Dunn County v. JUDY K.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2007
  2. SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN v. MitsubishiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2007
  3. Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
  4. Spencer v. KosirCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2007
  5. Town of Schoepke v. RustickCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API