Legal Opinion

Dickinson v. Pake

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 1, 1974No. 102PublishedCited by 175 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUSKINS, Justice.

Development of the law in North Carolina with respect to acquisition of prescriptive easements has followed a tortuous route — roundabout and bent in different directions.

Coke states that at common law a long, continuous and peaceable user was necessary to establish a prescriptive right. Coke on Littleton § 113B. However, most American courts have sought to equate acquisition of prescriptive easements to acquisition of title by adverse possession so that it is generally held that prescriptive acquisition requires open, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse user under…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Kelly v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Summey v. CauthenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Snowden v. . BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  5. Dulin Ex Rel. Dulin v. FairesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

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

3Cited by175 opinions

  1. Poor v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. North Carolina National Bank v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Bryant v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  4. State v. WitherspoonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Penley v. PenleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

170 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