Legal Opinion

Visser v. Craig

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 5, 2007No. 34610-9-IIPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 — Ralph and Rae Craig seek review of the trial court’s order on summary judgment granting an easement by necessity to Harvey S. Visser and Sharon M. Snedeker. The Craigs contend that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the Craigs created a landlocked parcel of property when they conveyed 13 acres to their neighbors, Kenneth and Janice Westhusing, in 1999; (2) no legal access existed through a private road easement purporting to grant access to the conveyed 13 acres; and (3) a boundary line adjustment avoids the creation of an easement by necessity. They also argue that the trial…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. LaMon v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Marincovich v. TarabochiaWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Schaaf v. HighfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Woodward v. LopezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. Robert Boyd Et Al., Appellants, v. Sunflower Properties LLC, RespondentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  3. Bert Kuty Revocable Living Trust v. MullenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  4. Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  5. Bobbi Woodward, V Hector Lopez, Et UxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

6 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