Legal Opinion
Lee v. Zom Clarendon, L.P.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided November 20, 2009No. Civil Action 1:09cv402PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
T. S. ELLIS, III, District Judge.
At issue on cross-motions for summary judgment in this diversity dispute is the existence of an easement. More specifically, plaintiff, the proponent of the disputed easement, argues for the existence of the easement by relying on three alternative theories: (1) an express easement; (2) an easement by implication; or (3) an easement by prescription. Defendant counters that all three theories fail either as a matter of law or on the undisputed record facts. Defendant also argues, as an affirmative defense, that plaintiff abandoned the easement.
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pacific Insurance Company v. American National Fire Insurance Company, Rail Link, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Charbonnages De France v. Frank B. Smith, Juanita Smith, Frank Smith, Jr., Smith Brothers Construction Company and Continental Coal Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Martin Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sun Yung Lee v. Zom Clarendon, L.P.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2010
- Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2020
- Hubbard v. STONY POINT LAND, INC.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2011