Legal Opinion

Neff v. Sandtrax, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 15, 2011No. 08CV0610; A142518PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOrtega, P. J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment regarding the boundary between their parcel and defendants’ parcel. The boundary dispute arises from the existence of two possible locations for a section corner: the “BLM corner” or the “Buckingham corner.” The boundary between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ parcels depends on the corner’s location, resulting in a disputed area of .12 acres. Finding for defendants on their affirmative defense of estoppel, the trial court declared that the boundary is determined by reference to the BLM corner. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions for errors of law, and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. S. T. S.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  2. Clark v. HindmanOregon Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Brunswick v. RundellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  4. Webb v. StewartOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Talbot v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Eagles Five, LLC v. LawtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. Hammond v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. Case v. BurtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. Blunier v. StaggsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. Esquire Investments, Inc. v. FirestoneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

1 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