Legal Opinion
Southside Ventures, LLC v. La Crosse Lumber Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided May 7, 2019No. WD 81668PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
"For a use to be continuous, a constant use is not required, but the essential attitude about the use must be continuous." Smith v. Chamblin Props., LLC , 201 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). "In considering whether or not a use was uninterrupted, the courts look only at the actions of the party against whom the prescriptive right is claimed-i.e., the owner of the servient estate." Id. (quoting Tuf Flight Indus., Inc. v. Harris , 129 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ). "Thus, the owner of the property must interrupt the adverse use during the ten-year time period to destroy the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson PartnershipSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Jacobs v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1945
- Sneil, LLC v. Tybe Learning Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Gerlt v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011
- Weaver v. HelmMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- BG Olive & Graeser, LLC, and Forsyth Investments, LLC. v. City of Creve Coeur, MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2022
- Cass County, Missouri v. City of Lee's Summit, MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021
- Christopher Cole v. The Kansas City Southern Railway CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024
- DICK PORTON, AMY PORTON, and NATHAN ATCHISON v. KEITH BOX and SARAH BOXMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024
- Forrest K. Backer, Jr. v. David A. BackerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.