Legal Opinion

Rendleman v. Heinley

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided November 21, 2006No. 25,358PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff Mark Rendleman and Defendant Donna Heinley own separate properties having a common boundary. Plaintiffs property is north and Defendant’s property is south of that common boundary. Plaintiff claims that Defendant trespassed across the common boundary and onto Plaintiffs property. He asserts that the district court erred in holding that Plaintiff failed to prove trespass.

{2} A second issue concerns the ownership of different property and the validity of Defendant’s easement over the property. This property lies to the east of and borders Defendant’s property.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Stueber v. PickardNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  2. New Mexicans for Free Enterprise v. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Komadina v. EdmondsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Abbinett v. FoxNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Landskroner v. McClureNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fowler v. Vista CareNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. Fowler v. Vista Care & American Home InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Montoya v. MedinaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API