Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fischer v. Revett

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 19, 1982No. 4-681A25Published

1DissentStaton, Judge

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment that Revetts have an implied easement over Fischers’ property.

The majority disagrees with the trial court’s judgment because some of its findings do not support the conclusion of the judgment. The majority opinion states:

“The trial court was correct in finding that the driveway loop had been used for many years prior to severance; however, we are forced to disagree with its other findings and the legal conclusions based on them because it is apparent that they were…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. Van Orman v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Searcy v. La GrotteIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Shandy v. BellIndiana Supreme Court · 1934

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