Hurst v. Full Channel Cable Television

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hurst v. Full Channel Cable Television

633 A.2d 264, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 246, 1993 WL 489678

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketNo. 92-449-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 633 A.2d 264 (Hurst v. Full Channel Cable Television) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurst v. Full Channel Cable Television, 633 A.2d 264, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 246, 1993 WL 489678 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

. This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear before this court and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case both appellants had appealed from a Superior Court judgment terminating an easement that had benefited the defendant’s property and burdened the plaintiffs’ property.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. In this ease, after trial, the trial justice ruled that the increased traffic and defendant’s failure to perform their duty to repair the roadway and also the conduct of the defendant’s employees warranted extinguishing of the easement.

In Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145 (R.I.1988) this court vacated the Superior Court judgment extinguishing an easement noting that “equity abhors a forfeiture.” The court stated that it was not necessarily impossible to resolve the problem without extinguishing the easement. The court pointed out that monitoring the use of an easement would be less difficult than other problems routinely faced by courts. We are of the opinion that extinguishing of the easement in this case was a more drastic remedy then is necessary.

For these reasons this case will be remanded to the Superior Court with the directions that the judgment entered be vacated, and the parties appear before the trial justice and adopt appropriate regulations for better use of easement setting forth necessary restrictions that would be enforceable by the Court.

Therefore, the appeal of the defendant is sustained, the judgment entered is vacated and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The appeal of the plaintiffs is denied and dismissed.

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

ORDER

. This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear before this court and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case both appellants had appealed from a Superior Court judgment terminating an easement that had benefited the defendant’s property and burdened the plaintiffs’ property.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. In this ease, after trial, the trial justice ruled that the increased traffic and defendant’s failure to perform their duty to repair the roadway and also the conduct of the defendant’s employees warranted extinguishing of the easement.

In Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145 (R.I.1988) this court vacated the Superior Court judgment extinguishing an easement noting that “equity abhors a forfeiture.” The court stated that it was not necessarily impossible to resolve the problem without extinguishing the easement. The court pointed out that monitoring the use of an easement would be less difficult than other problems routinely faced by courts. We are of the opinion that extinguishing of the easement in this case was a more drastic remedy then is necessary.

For these reasons this case will be remanded to the Superior Court with the directions that the judgment entered be vacated, and the parties appear before the trial justice and adopt appropriate regulations for better use of easement setting forth necessary restrictions that would be enforceable by the Court.

Therefore, the appeal of the defendant is sustained, the judgment entered is vacated and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The appeal of the plaintiffs is denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 264, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 246, 1993 WL 489678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-full-channel-cable-television-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack