Legal Opinion

Thorstrom v. Thorstrom

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 29, 2011No. A127888PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DONDERO, J.

Plaintiff and intervener appeal from a judgment that granted defendants an implied easement for exclusive use of water from a well on plaintiff and intervener’s property. We agree with the trial court that an implied easement exists under these facts, but further conclude that the scope of the easement granted to defendants is excessive, and reverse the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Intervener Wayne Thorstrom and defendant Alan Thorstrom are brothers. This dispute between them is focused on the right to use water from a well constructed on property owned by their mother Evelyn…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  3. Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Kruse v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  5. Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Batta v. HuntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
  2. Bayasi v. Cerullo CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Bridge Bloq Nac LLC v. SorfCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2019
  4. Quintana v. American International Industries CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. Ridec LLC v. HinkleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023

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