Legal Opinion

Peasel v. Dunakey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 3, 2009No. ED 91014PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NANNETTE A. BAKER, Chief Judge.

Introduction

Leo and Josephine Dunakey appeal the circuit court’s judgment extinguishing their roadway easement and quieting title by adverse possession in favor of Gary Peasel. The Dunakeys allege that the trial court erred in that: (1) Peasel’s use of the disputed property was not sufficiently adverse to the interests of the Dunakeys and other easement holders so as to extinguish the easement by adverse possession, and (2) the court lacked jurisdiction because other easement holders were not joined as necessary parties as required by Rule 52.04(a). We reverse…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. Loumar Development Co. v. RedelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
  3. Edmunds v. Sigma Chapter of Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Creech v. NoyesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Government e-Management Solutions, Inc. v. American Arbitration AssnMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Debra S. Pauli and Steven G. Spicer v. Gwen SpicerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Humphreys v. WooldridgeMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Sterling Investment Group, LLC v. Board of ManagersMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Baker v. Walnut Bowls, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Bruce Tetrault v. Ronald Yankowski, Defendants/Respondent.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2015

4 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