Legal Opinion

Howell v. Rickard

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 28, 2009No. SD 29546PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.

Bruce A. Rickard (“Mr. Rickard”) and Mark S. Rickard (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the judgment of the trial court which granted: an “easement by implication;” a common law “easement by necessi ty;” and injunctive relief preventing the blocking of the aforementioned easements over their property in favor of Daniel Howell (“Respondent”). 1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment, Beery v. Shinkle, 193 S.W.3d 435, 439 (Mo.App.2006), the record reveals that Appellants and Respondent are…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. Vossen v. DautelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  3. Beery v. ShinkleMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. Lewis v. HilkerbaumerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Orvis v. GarmsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Orla Holman Cemetery, Inc. v. Robert W. Plaster TrustSupreme Court of Missouri · 2010
  2. 401 South 18th Street, LLC v. O'LoughlinDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2020
  3. Consolidated Drainage District No. 2 of Scott County v. MockMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Mahoney v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATEMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API