How have courts interpreted "implied" language in determining that a plaintiff is entitled to an easement?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Miller v. Cabrera, E075257 (Cal. App. 2021):

^[6] Appellants assert that the trial court "impliedly" found that they were entitled to the easement. They cite Connolly v. Trabue (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1154, which held that the trial court made such an implied finding because it referred to "the [plaintiffs'] easement" and found that the plaintiffs had "continuously and openly used" the claimed easement for 15 years. (Id. at pp. 1161-1162.) The trial court here used no such language and made no such finding.
^[7] We do not distinguish between van't Rood and his predecessor in interest (see van't Rood v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 557), because the distinction is irrelevant to our discussion.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

On remand, if a defendant has unreasonably interfered with a plaintiff's easement, what is the standard for determining whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)

When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its factual determination for that factual determination? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted italicized language in the statute of limitations where a plaintiff has filed a claim in a different court? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for determining whether the court considered all relevant factors in determining a plaintiff's claim? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts interpreted the rule of common law in determining whether a person is entitled to sue under the California Family Law Act? (California, United States of America)

When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the language in a marriage agreement where the husband's claim is that he is entitled to a family allowance? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted section 1203.1(1) of the California Criminal Code to determine that a defendant is entitled to restitution exceeding the damages for which he is held culpable? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the rule that prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that the prior determination not to be foreclosed? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted "implied" language in determining that a plaintiff is entitled to an easement?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources