Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided January 14, 2015No. AC 12-P-260Published

1DissentAgnes, J.

It is settled law that necessity alone does not give rise to an implied easement. Kitras v. Aquinnah, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 285, 298 (2005) (Kitras I), citing Nichols v. Luce, 24 Pick. 102, 104 (1834). “Neither does there exist a public policy favoring the creation of implied easements when needed to render land either accessible or productive.” Ibid., citing Richards v. Attleborough Branch R.R. Co., 153 Mass. 120, 122 (1891). As a result, conventional legal doctrine requires the plaintiffs to prove that at the time the partition deeds were approved by the Probate Court judge in 1878, there was…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Clark v. State Street Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  4. Stop & Shop, Inc. v. GanemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
  5. Frank B. James v. James G. WattCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983

24 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