Legal Opinion

Tooker v. Feinstein

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 14, 1994No. 91-3362-E-3; CA A78452PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment declaring that defendants may maintain a retaining wall that they constructed within their driveway easement across plaintiffs property. On de novo review, ORS 19.125(3), we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Plaintiff and defendants own adjoining lots in the High Oaks Subdivision in the City of Medford. The lots are situated on a hill, with defendants’ lot uphill from plaintiffs. By deed and subdivision plat, defendants have an easement across the northern portion of plaintiffs land to obtain access to a local street. The easement, which is described by metes and…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Frankland v. City of Lake OswegoOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Jones Et Ux v. Edwards Et UxOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Minto v. Salem Water, Light & Power Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Beck v. Lane CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. D'ABBRACCI v. Shaw-BastianCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Clark v. KuhnCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  3. McFarland v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. Mcfarland v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  5. Tipperman v. TsiatsosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

5 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