Imrie v. Kelley
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 Steve and Kathy Kelley appeal the superior court’s grant of a prescriptive easement to Roscoe Imrie for use of a road to access other pieces of Mr. Imrie’s property. We conclude the findings of fact do not support the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Imrie’s use of the road was adverse. We conclude the findings support a reasonable inference of permissive use and, thus, we reverse.
Kulik, C.J.
FACTS
¶2 The following findings of fact are unchallenged and, therefore, are verities on appeal. See State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 571, 62 P.3d 489 (2003).
¶3 In 1951, Roscoe Imrie, his father, and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- State v. O'NeillWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. DickieWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Chaplin v. SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Beres v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Steven Lackey, Appellant/cross Resp v. David & Thuy Tiller, Respondent/cross AppCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
- Harlan D. Douglass, et ux v. Shamrock Paving, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.