Legal Opinion

Hillside Development Co. v. Fields

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 27, 1996No. WD 52032PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAURA DENVER STITH, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Roscoe Fields alleges that the trial court erred in rejecting his argument that he had an implied, or “visible” easement over the portion of the property of Plaintiff-Respondent Hillside Development Company on which sits a part of the driveway to Mr. Fields’ home. We agree. The undisputed facts establish all of the elements for creation of a visible easement: the driveway constitutes an obvious and visible benefit to the residential lot, was constructed as a permanent means of access to and from the garage, was used for many years prior to the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Curnutt v. Scott Melvin Transport, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Greisinger v. KlinhardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  3. Missouri State Oil Co. v. PessinaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  4. Causey v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. Schnider v. M. E. H. Realty Investment Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1946

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Zipper v. Health MidwestMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Russo v. BruceMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Baetje v. EisenbeisMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Post Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. WheelerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Brick House Cafe & Pub, L.L.C. v. CallahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002

4 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