Legal Opinion

Zeglin v. Gahagen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 2001PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 Sean E. Gahagen and Kimberlee H. Gahagen appeal from the final decree that established a disputed boundary line between two parcels of real estate, one owned by the Gahagens and the other by the Plaintiffs, Frank A. Zeglin, Jr. and Tammy Lee Zeglin. The Gahagens claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the Zeglins had satisfied the 21-year period for establishing a consentable line by recognition and acquiescence because it tacked the Zeglins’ period of ownership to that of their predecessors in title. We conclude that the court’s conclusion was in error, and for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dimura v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Wittig v. CarlacciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Plott v. ColeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Sentz v. CrabbsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Sorg v. CunninghamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Zeglin v. GahagenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Ferguson Mechanical Co. v. Department of Public WorksSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API