Legal Opinion

Herzog v. Boykin

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided November 13, 1985No. 2 CA-CIV 5455PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LACAGNINA, Judge.

In this case Stuart Herzog and Cornelius Boykin, Marietta Boykin and Alec Boykin (Boykin) were neighbors on developed properties divided by a vacant lot owned by Boykin. The vacant lot was used for parking by tenants of both developed properties and for ingress and egress by others as well as the parties. Herzog, a lawyer, claims his use and the use of his clients and employees of the vacant lot for parking was adverse to the use of Boykin and their predecessor, Robert Walter Adami, and since the statutory period for adverse possession has run, he owns an exclusive interest…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Purcell v. ZimbelmanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
  2. Larue v. KosichArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Etz v. MamerowArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Brown v. WareCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  5. Donahoe v. MarstonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Paxson v. GlovitzCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  2. Spaulding v. PouliotCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  3. Rowe v. RoweCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
  4. Bunyard v. US, Dept. of Agriculture, Forest ServiceDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2004
  5. Beck v. NevilleArizona Supreme Court · 2024

1 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