Legal Opinion

Baccouche v. Blankenship

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 11, 2007No. B192291PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We deal with the enforceability of an easement for equine use. Appellant Henri Baccouche, who now owns the servient tenement, argues that the easement granted by his predecessor violates a municipal ordinance that restricts the keeping of horses on residential property, because his lot is vacant land. Respondent John M. Blankenship, who owns the dominant tenement, argues the equine use is accessory to use of his residential property, hence that it is valid. We agree that Blankenship has a valid easement. But applicable zoning ordinances prohibit the keeping of horses on a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Willard v. First Church of Christ, ScientistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Wells v. ComstockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Kashani v. TSANN KUEN CHINA ENTERPRISE CO.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n v. FurlottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. Cottonwood Duplexes v. BarlowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of ConnecticutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. JCCrandall v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024

2 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