Legal Opinion

Habel v. James

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 2003No. 01-658PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice

¶ 1 Appellants Ray J. Habel and Habel, Bowd, & Habel, a partnership (Habel) appeal from the order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in favor of Respondents Barton James and Carol James (Jameses), determining that Jameses acquired a prescriptive easement on the Habel property for a dock and retaining wall. We affirm.

¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that a non-possessory prescriptive easement existed for the dock and retaining wall, and not a possessory adverse possession of property enclosed by the dock and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hyde v. LawsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Lindgren v. MartinIdaho Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Brumit v. LewisMontana Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Burlingame v. MarjerrisonMontana Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Swecker v. DornMontana Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Payne v. KnutsonMontana Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Hidden Hollow Ranch v. FieldsMontana Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Hallenberg v. General Mills Operations, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Apecella v. OvermanMontana Supreme Court · 2025
  5. Frank v. HustonMontana Supreme Court · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API