Legal Opinion

Bay City Prop. Owners v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Queen Anne's

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 2, 2024No. 0034/23Published

1Opinion of the Court

Bay City Property Owners Association, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County, et al. No. 0034, Sept. Term, 2023 Opinion by Leahy, J. Adverse Possession > Nature and Requisites > Duration and Continuity of Possession > Continuity in general The requirement that adverse use be uninterrupted or continuous also does not mean that the use “must be exercised constantly and without any intermission”; rather, the requirement “may be satisfied by use ‘with such frequency and constancy as to affect the landowner with notice that it is being exercised[.]’” Zimmerman v. Summers,

24 Md. App.…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Converge Services Group, LLC v. CurranCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  2. Smith v. ShiebeckCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  3. Cox v. ForrestCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
  4. City of Novi v. Robert Adell Children's Funded TrustMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Thomas v. FordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885

23 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