Grant County v. Mascall

738 P.2d 1392, 86 Or. App. 532
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 22, 1987
Docket9542; CA A41507
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 738 P.2d 1392 (Grant County v. Mascall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grant County v. Mascall, 738 P.2d 1392, 86 Or. App. 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this declaratory judgment action plaintiff county appeals from the portion of the judgment holding that neither it nor the public have acquired a prescriptive easement over certain roads located on property owned by defendant Mas-call. We find that the evidence did not clearly or convincingly establish an open and notorious use of defendant’s land, adverse to her rights, for a continuous and uninterrupted period of 10 or more years. See Thompson v. Scott, 270 Or 542, 546, 528 P2d 509 (1974). It is unnecesary for us to reach plaintiffs legal arguments, and we emphasize that our decision is based solely on our de novo finding.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mill Creek Glen Protection Ass'n v. Umatilla County
746 P.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
738 P.2d 1392, 86 Or. App. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-county-v-mascall-orctapp-1987.