Legal Opinion

Estojak v. Mazsa

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 10, 1989No. 87 E.D. Appeal Docket 1988PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

LARSEN, Justice.

This appeal presents a single issue: whether the appellants’ easement, a right of ingress and egress over appellees’ property, was extinguished by adverse possession. We answer in the negative.

Appellants, Andrew and Michael Estojak, own and operate a business known as Andy’s Auto Body on Jennings Street in Bethlehem, Northampton County. The property on which this business is located is situated in a plan known as the Minsi Trail Farm, the plan of which was recorded in the Northampton County Recorder’s Office on August 13, 1925.

On July 16, 1986, appellants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Piper v. MowrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Cohen v. Simpson Real Estate Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Dunlap v. LarkinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Reed v. WolyniecSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. STOZENSKI v. Borough of Forty FortSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of CommissionersCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Mueller v. HoblynWyoming Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Smith v. MuellnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  4. Croyle v. DellapeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. In re Condemnation of Land Along Woodside Road as an Extension of Maplewood Drive in FrankstownCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

20 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