Ag Law & Taxation Case Annotations

Jones v. Sparks, No. 2008-CA-002006-MR, 20009 Ky. App. LEXIS 200 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2009)(plaintiff's thirteen-year use of road over defendant's property via oral agreement did not give rise to easement; no written agreement executed and facts do not support easement by estoppel, no easement by implication because common ownership not present, and no easement by way of necessity because plaintiff has other access route to property).

Downs v. Lyles, No. 2080599, 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 512 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Oct. 9, 2009)(adjoining landowner dispute; jury determination of willfull and malicious trespass upheld; trial court's determination finding negligent excavation and deprivation of lateral support reversed as not supported by the evidence; no need to prove adverse possession because parties stipulated that boundary line was existing fence line).

Daisy Farm Limited Partnership v. Morrolf, No. 43A03-0905-CV-229, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 2097 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2009)(parties' riparian lot lines consistent with the lots' property lines; plaintiff failed to show that it acquired a portion of defendant's adjoining lot via adverse possession - conflicting evidence existed on whether plaintiff exercised exclusive control over subject area, and plaintiff's payment of taxes on disputed area not demonstrated to be clearly reasonable).

Armstrong v. Fischer, No. 2008AP2168, 2009 Wisc. App. LEXIS 768 (Wisc. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2009)(plaintiff, based on evidence, entitled to rebuttable presumption that land at issue was not wild or unoccupied; thus, presumption of permissive use of road and surrounding land not applicable; case remanded to trial court with defendant having opportunity to present rebuttal evidence).

Broadwater Development, L.L.C., et al. v. Nelson, No. DA 08-0587, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 465 (Mont. Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2009)(60-foot emergency public access and utility easement over defendant's property is valid and enforceable against defendant, and Notice of Invalid Easement filed in Recorder's Office is invalid and of no legal effect).

Schultz v. Southeast Supply Header, LLC, No. 1:09-00055-KD-C, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86240 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2009)(plaintiff's claims for negligence, trespass, nuisance and inverse condemnation arising from defendant's installation of underground interstate natural gas pipeline dismissed; plaintiff sold defendant 50-foot wide permanent right-of-way easement and plaintiff signed a release which released defendant from all claims and damages of every kind whatsoever, present and future, to interests of the undersigned arising from or related to the surveying, preparation, laying and construction of a pipeline and appurtenances under, upon, and across the plaintiff's land).

Burdette v. Brush Mountain Estates, LLC, No. 082079, 2009 Va. LEXIS 91 (Va. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2009)(statute requiring estates in land be conveyed by deed or will inapplicable to conveyance of easement (easement is not an "estate"); but deeds at issue along with plat which was incorporated for descriptive purposes did not contain operative words manifesting an intent to grant an easement).

Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County, No. 1-CA-TX-08-0009 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2009)(upon division of land into multiple parcels, a division for property tax assessment purposes occurs upon county assessor completing process of identifying and valuing the new parcels rather than at the time of sale).

Johnston v. Cornelius, No. A137037, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1349 (Ore. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2009)(defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that driveway easement had been extinguished, and plaintiff proved that defendant substantially interfered with plaintiff's use of the easement).

O'Connor v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., No. 3:09CV00022, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65414 (W.D. Va. Jul. 29, 2009)(easement condemnation case).

Maidstone on the Potomac, LLC, et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-155, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65086 (N.D. W.V. Jul. 28, 2009)(adverse possession case).

Magee v. United States, No. 09-60009, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16021 (5th Cir. Jul. 20, 2009)(plaintiff conveyed farm to Farm Service Agency (FSA) in satisfaction of $686,349 debt and entered into five-year lease-back agreement under which plaintiff could buy the property back at the end of the five-year term at its appraised value at that time; FSA appraised property at $899,000 and plaintiff objected; FSA NAD ultimately upheld appraisal value and plaintiff brought court action; court held that plaintiff failed to show that FSA's decision was arbitrary or capricious, and plaintiff's claim for damages based on federal farm policies without merit).

Karnitz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 08-2100, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15701 (Jul. 17, 2009)(reversal of district court judgment concluding that mortgage was invalid under Minnesota law because both spouses did not sign it; plaintiffs estopped from claiming invalidity of mortgage because nonsigning spouse knew of and intended to mortgage the homestead, retained the benefits of the mortgage and defendant changed position based on assumed validity of mortgage; dissent pointed out that defendant never detrimentally relied on the non-signing spouse's language or conduct in making loan - nothing the plaintiff's did or said caused defendant to lend funds or forego obtaining non-signing spouse's signature on necessary documents).

Grygiel, et al. v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc., No. 2009AP2028, 2009 Wisc. App. LEXIS 417 (Wisc. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2009)(plaintiff's claim for misuse of easement over its property by defendant properly dismissed by trial court; burden on servient estate by increased number of easement users was merely de minimis).

Fawcett, LTD v. Idaho Northern & Pacific Railroad Co., No. 11-07-00154-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 3304 (Tex. Ct. App. May 14, 2009)(seller terminated real estate sale contract upon learning of survey mistake; contract clause provided that either party could terminate the contract if the actual acreage contained in a survey varied by more than 10 percent from 5,000 acres; court held that contract terms allowed seller to terminate the contract, and title problems were not relevant to the termination provision in the contract).

Nourachi v. United States, No. 5:08-cv-70-0c-10GRJ, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34468 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23 2009)(1937 deed's description of property subsequently conveyed at tax sale ambiguous, and use of extrinsic evidence appropriate to determine intent of parties at time of conveyance; if defendant determined to be owner of subject property, state Marketable Record Title Act cannot divest defendant of ownership rights).

Coley v. Fain, et al., No. 2071002, 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 105 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Apr. 17, 2009)(adverse possession case).

Holley Homestead Trust v. Harrison, No. 44,149 2009 La. App. LEXIS 576 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2009)(adverse possession case; plaintiff met statutory requirements for adverse possession claim).

Rucker Properties, L.L.C. v. Friday, et al., No. 98,646, 2009 Kan. App. LEXIS 138 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2009)(right of first refusal contained in lease agreement which would take effect on sale of subject property not triggered by quit claim deed of property which was executed as gift by family members in favor of specific members of the family; defendant had also acquired portion of tract via adverse possession).

Townsend v. Nickell, et al., No. 9-030/08-1058, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 274 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)(adverse possession case).

Walker, et al. v. Sapelo Island Heritage Authority, et al., No. S08A1608, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 98 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Mar. 27, 2009)(quiet title action; evidence of continuous farming of property, erection of fences and construction of buildings were indicia of possession under state statute which raised a material question of fact concerning possession for requisite period of time under a claim of right).

Highland Lakes Country Club and Community Assoc. v. Nicastro, et al., No. A-4260-07T1, 2009 N.J. Super. LEXIS 63 (N.J. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2009)(no claim for negligence against surveyor in boundary dispute case had accrued because adjoining landowner had not shown error in survey, and claim against surveyor was contingent on property owner's liability to adjoining landowner).

Holly Creek Production Corporation v. Rose, No. 2008-CA-000260-MR, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 39 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2009)(oil and gas lease not forfeited either for failure to bury lines or pay royalties; lease contained no end date to landowner's option of requesting that lines be buried, and farm-tap sales to be included in calculation of royalties; case remanded for determination of which party is to bear cost for burying pipelines).

Bay Area Council Boy Scouts of America v. Myers, No. 03-04-00653-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1976 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2009)(trespass to try title action; summary judgment for defendant affirmed; plaintiff could not establish superior title or elements of adverse possession or prior possession).

Romero v. Bernell, No. CIV 08-422 BB/WDS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32091 (D. N.M. Mar. 24, 2009)(defendant cannot object to a partitioning of property on the ground that the future principal value of the property appears to be for wind farm development; right to harvest wind is an inchoate interest in the land which does not become vested until reduced to possession by employing it for a useful purpose, much like water).

White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. County of Mahnomen, No. 07-3962 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2009)(Indian tribe's casino property not subject to property tax because property was acquired under federal land settlement statute and, thus, held in trust by United States).

Windham Land Trust, et al. v. Jeffords, et al., No. Cum-08-434, 2009 Me. LEXIS 29 (Me. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mar. 19, 2009)(restrictive language in deed imposing a conservation easement on part of defendant's property precludes the defendant's from using the tract for activities by the paying public).

Hammack v. Coffelt Land Title, Inc., No. WD69133, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 326 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2009)(negligence case involving claim for breach of escrow account in land sale transaction).

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. v. Alaska, No. 6344, 2009 Alas. LEXIS 24 (Alas. Sup. Ct. Mar. 13, 2009))(defendant's conveyance of 250,000 acres of land to University of Alaska unconstitutional).

Babel v. Schmidt, 17 Neb. App. 400 (2009)(boundary between adjacent properties determined to be current thread of stream; appellee failed to prove that an avulsive event occurred that fixed location of boundary even though stream moved).

TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC v. Davidson Ranch, Inc., No. 4:08CV000204 BSM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2009)(oil pipeline easement case).

Hoskins v. Williams, No. E2008-00481-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2009)(plaintiffs not entitled to easement over driveway for ingress and egress; plaintiffs only entitled to express easement granted in deed for access from a different point).

Hammond v. Lovvorn, No. 2070749, 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 45 (Ala. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2009)(property owner entitled to erect gate across dirt road over which other party had easement; owner acted reasonably in erecting gate to prevent dumping and offered easement holder a key to the gate to allow them use of the easement; burden on easement holder negligible).

Marsh v. Tax Commission, No. 20080291-CA, 2009 Utah App. LEXIS 41 (Utah Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2009)(plaintiff's property, separated by state highway, valued for tax purposes as separate parcels rather than as a single farm; property on east side of road not entitled to agricultural use assessment because it did not meaningfully contribute to the west side's property farm production).

Shah v. Smith, No. C-080298, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 623 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2009)(case involves existence of purported driveway easement; deed which referred to existence of easement found to be part of sales contract and ran with the land)

Lawrence County v. Shaffer, et ux., et al., No. M2007-01696-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2009)(private gate installed across unpaved rural road ordered to be removed; road determined to be county road inasmuch as road's entire length contained in easement specifying that no private party was allowed to obstruct).

Mark, et al. v. Long, et al., No. 07CA2981, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 494 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2009)(one-year notice not required to terminate oral lease because relationship between parties was a periodic tenancy).

Howe, et al. v. Boyle, No. 2008AP2371-FT, 2009 Wisc. App. LEXIS 55 (Wisc. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2009)(insufficient evidence present to establish acquisition of title via adverse possession).

Garner v. Griffin, No. 13-06-621-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 550 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2009)(recording of oil and gas lease, statement in late father's will and payment of property taxes on subject property did not establish ownership by adverse possession).

Winfield, et al. v. Kasel, et al., No. A08-0812, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 103 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009)(title to disputed tract acquired by adverse possession; statutory elements satisfied).

Campbell v. Degraw, No. 8-1054/08-0942, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 25 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2009)(plaintiff failed to prove that the parties owned adjacent properties, and that for a period in excess of 10 years, the parties mutually recognized, acknowledged and treated as the boundary, a line definitively marked by a fence or in some other manner).

Windham v. Riddle, No. 26586, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 14 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Jan. 20, 2009) (installment land contract did not create appurtenant easement for access and irrigation purposes; installment land contract not tantamount to conveyance and additional steps needed to create appurtenant easement).

Shaffer v. O’Toole, No. 1858 MDA 2007, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 15, 2009)(defendants acquired title to one-acre tract via adverse possession; evidence showed that defendants mowed the tract, constructed gold fish ponds and water pumps and developed walking trails).

Longoria, et al. v. Lasater, et al., No. 04-08-00078-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 188 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2009)(denial of plaintiffs’ claim that 3/21 mineral interest was held in trust and should have been conveyed to them in 1950 by trustee instead of being passed down to defendants upheld on appeal; person through whom plaintiffs claimed title died before 1950 trust deed and defendants established clear chain of title to disputed 187.5 mineral acres).

Johnson, et al. v. La Mesa Farms, Inc., No. 07-07-0241-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 57 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2009)(trial court decision ordering partition and sale of farmland upheld; evidence sufficient to support forced sale because land could not have been divided equally without impairing its value given the lack of uniformity in land quality, and sub-surface minerals not spread uniformly throughout the tract).

Capps v. Abbott, No. 52A02-0804-CV-388, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2568 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008)(title to property acquired by adverse possession; plaintiffs exercised degree of use and control over subject parcel that was normal and customary, and demonstrated an intent to claim full ownership of tract superior to rights of all others, and plaintiff’s actions sufficient to give actual or constructive notice of intent for statutory period).

Watson v. Mense, No. WD 69255, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1715 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008)(adverse possession case).

Double J Farmlands, Inc. v. Paradise Baptist Church, et al., No. 2007-CA-01537-SCT, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 591(Miss. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2008)(plaintiff’s adverse possession claim failed due to plaintiff’s inability to prove that possession was hostile).

Huber v. Knock, et al., No. C-080071, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4961 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2008)(trial court properly reformed deed that had conveyed real property; parties produced clear and convincing evidence that seller had intended to convey an access easement at time of sale and owner of burdened land believed that an access easement was to be conveyed).

Kiesling v. Andrews, No. WD68991, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1462 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2008)(farm deeded to daughters properly petitioned; grandson living on farm did not acquire ownership interest via adverse possession because possession lacked hostility).

Dick Bedlington Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Tawes, No. 59387-1-I, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 2484 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2008)(two separate real estate purchase and sale agreements not enforceable for failure to violate the statute of frauds; inadequate legal description).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., No. 07-3632, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21199 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2008)(defendant has right to clear an 80- foot swath of mature pine trees on plaintiffs' property in order to maintain natural gas pipeline pursuant to 1947 easement even though easement not utilized since 1947).

Thompson v. Town of Brooklyn, No. 2007AP2301, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 790 (Wisc. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2008)(case invovles road improvement project; plaintiff's claim for damage to fence and vegetation not permitted because deed by which plaintiff obtained title to the property did not convey land within the road right-of-way; but defendant denied summary judgment on plaintiff's claims that project changed certain field access roads and driveway).

Claggett v. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, et al., No. 578, 2008 Md. App. LEXIS 127 (Md. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2008)(landowner who obtained release of owner's lot from terms of easement may construct dwelling on lot and sell the house and lot free of easement restrictions).

McFarland v. Kempthorne, No. 06-36106, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20811 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2008)(plaintiff not entitled to easement by necessity over federal land (in Glacier National Park) to access plaintiff's property because plaintiff still has year-round access to his property, even though such acess limited to non-motorized means in winter months; defendant's regulation of access supported by rational basis).

Camp Clarke Ranch, L.L.C., et al. v. Morrill County, 17 Neb. App. 76 (2008)(defendant's decision to vacate public road not judicial in nature and is not subject to judicial review).

Thorn v. Olson, No. 2006AP2063, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 752 (Wisc. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2008)(adverse possession case; statutory requirements satisfied).

Dinnell v. Weir, No. A-07-885, 2008 Neb. App. LEXIS 181 (Neb. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008)(adverse possession case; plaintiff met statutory requirements; fact that normal farming practices required land to lay fallow for periods of time did not negate satisfaction of continuity requirement and defendant’s argument to the contrary meritless).

Jernigan v. McLamb, et al., No. COA07-1540, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1607 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2008)(plaintiff entitled to easement by necessity; plaintiff lacked legally enforceable access to farm property).

Zanelli v. McGrath, No. A11711, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1381 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2008)(easement extinguished under doctrine of merger).

R.C.R., Inc. v. Deline, S-07-0029, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 100 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Aug. 15, 2008)(easement case involving Wyoming law).

Precious Offerings Mineral Exchange, Inc. v. McLain, No. 07CA1264, 2008 Colo. App. LEXIS 1273 (Colo. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2008)(owner of unpatented mining claim, like a federal oil and gas lessee, does not have standing to bring action to condemn easement of necessity; plaintiff failed to establish easement by implication over access road).

Black Stone Acquisitions Partners I, L.P. v. Black, et al., No. 1:07CV9, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60061 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2008)(case involves construction of language in deed reserving a one-half interest in all minerals; issue is whether lignite is “minerals”; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied as fact issues remain concerning what parties intended “all minerals” to mean; in Mississippi, whether something is a mineral is fact question).

Schneider v. United States, No. 8:99CV0315, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57422 (D. Neb. Jul. 29, 2008)(plaintiffs motion for redetermination of damages in rail-to-trail case denied; proper measure of damages is not difference in affected property’s value before and after the taking, but rather incremental difference between value of land burdened by recreational trail and value of land burdened by railroad easement as stated in court’s 2003 order).

East Hampton Livestock Corp. v. Fleming, et al., No. 2007-02878, 2008 N. Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jul. 29, 2008)(plaintiff’s adverse possession claim fails because plaintiff’s usage of subject area was not hostile; plaintiff role with respect to the subject acreage was essentially one of trustee that maintained the parcel for the benefit of the residential lot owners).

Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. Contra Costa County, et al., No. A116712, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2008)(defendant’s order requiring destruction and removal of all dwelling units, outhouses and docks erected by plaintiff on Golden Isle affirmed; plaintiff in violation of land use ordinance limiting urban development in County to 35 percent of its land, reserving the remaining 65 percent for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses).

Owen, et al. v. Allen, et al., No. A119427, 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5945 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2008)(preliminary injunction against defendant for violating restrictive covenant reversed; covenant did not meet requirements of a covenant running with the land or of an equitable servitude because there was nothing in recorded instrument reflecting original grantor’s intent that restrictive covenant bind subsequent purchasers).

Weeks, et al. v. Krysa, et al., No. Yor-07-702, 2008 Me. LEXIS 121 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Jul. 17, 2008)(evidence insufficient to establish title to undeveloped, waterfront lot by adverse possession).

Burlison, et al. v. United States, No. 06-6369, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15181 (6th Cir. Jul. 17, 2008)(Tennessee landowners hold easement over field-access road across wildlife refuge, and defendant lacks authority to regulate easement).

In re Rafter Seven Ranches, LP, No. 05-40483, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1989 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jul. 15, 2008)(court issued order requiring debtor to comply with provision in parties’ joint settlement agreement which prohibited debtor from taking any action to create any lien or encumbrance on farmland; immediately before scheduled auction of farmland, debtor’s partner filed Notice of Suit with Register of Deeds as to subject land and court ruled that such filing would place cloud on title in violation of settlement agreement).

In re Rafter Seven Ranches, LP, No. 05-40483, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1993 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jul. 15, 2008)(settlement agreement entitled debtor to all farm income generated from property at issue; court interpreted agreement as granting debtor an interest in net income from crops growing at time agreement entered into; as such, high bidder at auction entitled to income from crops growing on property that were planted after agreement entered into).

In re Appeal of Parker, No. COA07-635, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1338 (N.C. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)(property owner challenges County method of land valuation as not conforming to state law; court holds that Property Tax Commission did not err when it confirmed the County’s valuation method).

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, et al. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, No. S136468 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Jul. 14, 2008)(special countywide assessment to fund open space program violates Proposition 218 because assessment did not comply with statutory special benefit and proportionality requirements).

In re Opening a Private Road, No. 2214 C.D. 2007, 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 319 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jul. 11, 2008)(Private Road Act constitutional, and landowner with landlocked tract entitled to private road across Homeowner Association property; even though landowner would benefit privately from opening of road, public benefited by allowing the public road because it was not in the public interest to have land that could not be used).

Grubka, et al. v. Van Deusen, No. 276322, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1394 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2008)(no boundary by acquiescence where fence between adjoining tracts located in woods, woven from tree-to-tree and origin and purpose of fence not determined; no acquiescence in law or fact).

Reyes v. Saenz, No. 04-08-00021-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5065 (Tex. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2008)(defendant failed to offer evidence to establish that access route to landlocked parcel was the "only practicable way" to reach plaintiff's property; trial court's award of summary judgment for defendant reversed).

Acton v. Acton, No. 2007-CA-000239-MR, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 210 (Ky. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2008)(sufficient evidence produced for court to determine that farm could be partitioned; trial court’s determination that farm indivisible and must be sold reversed).

Rinn v. Wennenweser, No. 01-07-00763-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4978 (Tex. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2008)(easement case involving 1901 easement over large tract of land upheld as valid).

Ferguson v. Sharp, et al., No. E2007-001178-COA-R3-CV, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2008)(defendants installation of gate on right-of- way located on defendant's property but used by plaintiff to access plaintiff's land permanently enjoined; gate not necessary for defendant's safe use and enjoyment of defendant's property and plaintiff had prescriptive easement).

Frye, et al. v. Presley, et al., No. E2007-00510-COA-R3-CV, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2008)(evidence indicated that defendant had prescriptive easement over driveway at issue in case).

Zweygardt v. Elbert County, No. 06CA2197, 2008 Colo. App. LEXIS 1071 (Colo. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2008)(defendant’s statutory authority to require private access ranch road comply with fire code and access requirements inapplicable to farms and ranches; summary judgment for defendant reversed and case remanded for determination by trial court of whether property traversed by the road qualifies as a farm or ranch as defined by state law).

Isom v. Clark, No. 26281-2-III, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 1447 (Wash. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2008)(evidence sufficient to support elements of adverse possession; title to disputed strip quieted in plaintiffs).

Brumbaugh v. Mikelson Land Company, No. S-07-0218, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 68 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Jun. 12, 2008)(subdivision lot owners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief against successors in interest to subdivision developer for enforcement of rights they claimed they were entitled pursuant to subdivision’s restrictive covenants and plat; court held that covenants did not grant lot owners right to connect to water system developed by successor-in-interest or to central livestock facilities located in common area – covenants neither expressly or impliedly create those rights).

Porter v. Morrill, et al., No. AC 27739, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 323 (Conn. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2008)(quiet title action; description of disputed parcel in 1816 deed was sufficient to convey title, and plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession even if it was not the record owner of the parcel).

Isom v. Clark, No. 26281-2-III, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 1447 (Wash. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2008)(evidence sufficient to support elements of adverse possession; title to disputed strip quieted in plaintiffs).

Biagini v. Beckham, et al., No. C054915, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 847 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2008)(public use of road as shown by plaintiff insufficient to constitute implied acceptance of defendant’s statutory offer to dedicate it for public use; accordingly, plaintiff’s cutting down of trees and other vegetation on defendant’s adjacent property improper and plaintiff liable for $4,296 in damages).

Costa v. Furtado, No. NC-2006-0443, 2008 R.I. Super. LEXIS 69 (R.I. Sup. Ct. Jun. 5, 2008)(trespass case; no easement established or proven).

State v. United States, No. 06-4062, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11936 (10th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008)(quiet title action brought by state of Utah against private landowner; state claims title to lakebed of Utah lake, a navigable body of freshwater, under equal footing doctrine upon admission to Union on Jan. 4, 1896; landowner traces title to 63-acre slough to patent issued by defendant in 1881; state officials failed to approve decision to agree to quiet title in private landowner).

Lunt v. Lance, No. 20070014-CA, 2008 Utah App. LEXIS 187 (Utah Ct. App. May 30, 2008)(plaintiff established elements for prescriptive easement, but scope of easement limited by plaintiff’s abandonment of portion of easement).

Torgelson v. 17138 880th Avenue, No. A-06-1507, 2008 Minn. LEXIS 252 (Minn. Sup. Ct. May 22, 2008)(MN Constitution precludes forfeiture of homestead obtained under drug asset forfeiture statute).

Sunrise Valley, LLC v. Kempthorne, No. 06-4188 (10th Cir. May 20, 2008)(sand, gravel and rock located on and under plaintiff’s property are “minerals” that are reserved to the U.S. under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916; subject property homesteaded under patent that excepted and reserved to the U.S. all the coal and other minerals in the property combined with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such minerals).

Holoubek v. Romshek, et al., No. A-06-1146, 16 Neb. App. 677 (2008)(real estate contract rescinded; after purchase, discovery was made that adjacent owner claimed 6.3-acre rectangular tract that plaintiffs had allegedly purchased from contract seller; error caused by scrivenor’s error in deed filed in 1922; trial court, on remand, to consider plaintiffs’ damage claim).

Haight, et al. v. Serena Construction Company, LLC, et al., No. 60311-6-I, 2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. May 19, 2008)(title to disputed strip of property obtained by adverse possession; adverse possession elements satisfied).

Kelly v. Enbridge (U.S.) Inc., No. 07-3245, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39854 (C.D. Ill. May 16, 2008)(defendant had no property interest in plaintiff's property with respect to pipeline, but court allowed correct party to be added as defendant; easement valid and allows easement holder to enter property to construct and maintain second pipeline).

Grice v. Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc., Nos. 2006-352 & 2006-510, 2008 Vt. LEXIS 64 (Vt. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2008)(defendant allowed, under state law, to condemn an easement over plaintiff’s farm for installation of electrical-transmission line, removal of “danger trees” outside the easement and access to easement at all points in event of emergency).

Daisy Farm Limited Partnership v. Morrolf, No. 43A04-0707-CV-390, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. May 16, 2008)(riparian rights of shoreline boundaries where property lines meet shoreline at right angles to be determined by straight extension method rather than right angle method; but trial court’s determination that plaintiff had not acquired titled to a portion of defendant’s lot via adverse possession reversed – trial court failed to determine whether defendant (or predecessors in interest) exerted sufficient control, intent, notice and duration over subject property, and trial court failed to consider whether plaintiff had reasonable belief that it had paid taxes on disputed strip).

Hoose v. Doody, No. 43A03-0708-CV-420, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. May 16, 2008)(plaintiff failed to obtain title to disputed tract via adverse possession due to failure to pay taxes reasonably believed in good faith to be due on the disputed tract; prescriptive easement claim fails for failure to raise issue at trial).

American General Financial Services, Inc. v. Carter, No. 98,031, 2008 Kan. App. LEXIS 79 (Kan. Ct. App. May 16, 2008)(real estate foreclosure case involving relative priorities of a lien for unpaid sales tax and later purchase money mortgage given by defaulting taxpayers to acquire the property which is later sold at foreclosure; court held that mortgage given to secure the loan used by taxpayer to buy the property has priority).

Township of Piscataway v. South Washington Avenue, LLC, et al., No. A- 3648-05T3, 2008 N.J. Super. LEXIS 102 (N.J. Super. Court May 14, 2008) (plaintiff sued to condemn defendant’s farm and five years later filed a declaration of taking and deposited an estimate of the farm’s fair market value as of the date suit was filed; farm’s value increased substantially during the five-year period; condemnation allowed, but compensation level set at farm’s value as of date declaration of taking filed).

Engel v. Carlson, No. A-07-016, 2008 Neb. App. LEXIS 94 (Neb. Ct. App. May 13, 2008)(claim for prescriptive easement over road used to access farm dismissed because use of road began with permission of a tenant of the defendant’s predecessor in interest and continued only by permission; thus statute never tolled and permissive use could be terminated at any time).

Meerland Dairy, LLC, et al. v. Ross Township, et al., No. 07CA0083, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1927 (Ohio Ct. App. May 9, 2008)(township’s amendment to existing zoning code to prohibit “agribusinesses” by declaring that such enterprises are not “agriculture” and classifying them as a conditional use for which a permit must be obtained from the relevant zoning authority not within scope of authority of township trustees under state law; at issue is 2,100-head dairy operation operating on 100 acres).

Pardee v. Jolly, No. 80066-9, 2008 Wash. LEXIS 466 (Wash. Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008)(suit for specific performance of option to purchase real estate; substantial evidence supported trial court finding that plaintiff timely made final option payment, but evidence did not support trial court’s finding that payment made at same time plaintiff notified defendant of intent to exercise option; thus, plaintiff did not perform according to terms of option contract, but plaintiff may be entitled to equitable grace period; case remanded to trial court for determination whether grace period should be extended and whether specific performance should be ordered).

Ralph Naylor Farms, LLC v. Latah County, et al., No. CV07-139-S-EJL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37152 (D. Idaho May 6, 2008)(case involves state inverse condemnation action, federal takings violation and violations of substantive due process and equal protection; plaintiff owns farmland for which he sought to obtain water rights for crop irrigation and facilitation of mineral extraction, but water right and mining applications denied; court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims).

Brackey v. Washington County, No. C4-06-7837, 2008 Minn. Tax LEXIS 8 (Minn. Tax Ct. May 6, 2008)(parcel of land not qualified for ag land classification because property intended for development and not used primarily for agriculture (sale of Christmas trees)).

Strome v. Lane County, No. A133090, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 576 (Ore. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2008)(defendant has statutory authority to proceed with legalization of road – process of conducting a survey and issuing order to eliminate doubts as to road’s location and its lawful establishment as a county road; plaintiff’s request for injunction denied).

Roberts v. Russolino, et al., No. K.M. 06-415, 2008 R.I. Super LEXIS 57 (R.I. Sup. Ct. Apr. 29, 2008)(Zoning Board’s approval of local Planning Board’s decision to grant master plan approval for cluster development of residential subdivision upheld; involves development of farmland which has been in the same family for over 300 years).

Spaulding v. Pouliot, No. 2 CA-CV 2007-0108, 2008 Ariz. App. LEXIS 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2008)(party asserting ownership of property by adverse possession via prescriptive easement does not bear the burden of proving that use not with implied permission of true owner; trial court wrongly interpreted prior caselaw and case remanded to trial court for entry of appropriate judgment).

Keen v. Campbell, No. 28337, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 539 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2008)(trial court’s decision ordering partition and sale of farm property rather than partition in-kind upheld where partition in-kind would greatly prejudice one owner; evidence demonstrated that property odd-shaped, portion of property much more productive, and farming operations would be much more difficult with partition in-kind).

Clark County v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 06-1377, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8382 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 18, 2008)(Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered to reconsider its decision to allow construction of wind farm near site of new Las Vegas Airport; evidence indicated that turbines would interfere with airport radar systems and that FAA determination arbitrary and capricious).

Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., No. 98,098 (Kan. Sup. Ct. Apr. 18, 2008)(defendant’s taking of easement via eminent domain for laying of telecommunication cable on farmland proper; defendant vested with discretion for determining necessity for taking of land for public purposes, and plaintiff failed to establish prerequisites for injunctive relief and lawful public purpose existed for taking).

Wenzel Estate v. Wenzel, No. 20070264, 2008 N.D. LEXIS 64 (N.D. Sup. Ct. Apr. 17, 2008)(state partition statute vesting courts with equitable powers in partition actions does not include the power to order one party to buy out the other party’s share of jointly owned property; case remanded to determine whether personal property involved can be partitioned without great prejudice to the parties involved).

Richardson v. Zoning Commission, No. AC 28364, 2008 Conn. App. LEXIS 141 (Conn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2008)(operation of equine facility on 6.4 acre tract began in 1973; zoning regulations revised in 1984 and use became nonconforming; property owner sought permission to construct 12,000 square foot indoor riding arena; such proposal held to constitute a change to defendant’s permitted use of the property requiring special permit to be filed and public hearing held).

Ambrosia Land Investments, LLC v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, et al., No. 07-1945, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7520 (7th Cir. Apr. 9, 2008)(Illinois 10-year construction statute of repose applies to construction-related improvements to real property; coal mine is an improvement to real property, but defendant coal company sued in its capacity as owner of the mineral estate for negligent failure to provide adequate subjacent support; as such, coal company not protected by statute of repose and trial court’s grant of summary judgment reversed and case remanded).

Phillips, et al. v. Woods, et al., No. E2007-00697-COA-R3-CV, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2008)(boundary dispute case; defendant found to have retained an easement by necessity and title reformed due to defendants’ adversely possessing the disputed property for over 30 years).

Berry, et al. v. Mullins, No. CA2006-07-173, 2008 Ohio 1475 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)(boundary dispute case; evidence established that boundary properly determined by survey references to descriptive elements (e.g., area, quantity and frontage) rather than by reference to natural and artificial monuments).

Power Gas Marketing & Transmission, Inc. v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, et al., 2008 Pa. Super. 54(Penn. Sup. Ct. 2008)(case involves a joint operating agreement (entered into in 1969) between the parties involving contribution of for oil and natural gas leases to a newly-formed joint venture; joint operating agreement also included preferential purchase rights; claim was that the preferential purchase rights clause violated the rule against perpetuities; court holds that legislature’s repeal of the rule against perpetuities effective for interests created after 2006 should apply in this case because policies prompting the creation of the rule are “no longer laudable” and applying the rule in this case would hurt the oil and gas industry).

Jacks, et al. v. Taylor, No. 2060455, 2008 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 187 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Mar. 28, 2008)(boundary-line dispute involving claim of adverse possession; claim failed).

Simpson v. Cotton Creek Circles, LLC, No. 07SA42, 2008 Colo. LEXIS 283 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Mar. 24, 2008)(state’s confined aquifer rules upheld; rules based on finding that San Luis Valley’s confined aquifer is overappropriated and any new groundwater withdrawals must be matched in equal measure to amount withdrawn; trial court’s holding that rules do not violate either CO statutes or CO Constitution upheld; confined aquifer does not contain any unappropriated water, thus restrictions on withdrawals from the aquifer do not violate the constitutional right to appropriate).

Jones v. Stahr, et al., 16 Neb. App. 596 (2008)(right of first refusal to buy real estate, after seller has determined both to sell the entire remaining property and to accept terms and conditions specified by potential buyer, ripens into an option; because options are assignable, provision in option holder’s acceptance reserving right to assign does not constitute material deviation).

Matoush v. Lovingood, 177 P.3d 1262 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 2008)(easement case; when easement expressly created, but never used, use of easement area not adverse and did not trigger statutorily-mandated period of time for adverse possession until easement holder need to use the easement, demanded to use it, and was denied the right to use it; result was that burdened property owners had not terminated the easement holder’s right to use the easement as a surface right-of-way).

Stokes v. Cottrell, et al., No. 2060887, 2008 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 133 (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Mar. 14, 2008)(quiet title action involving farm property).

Mier v. Zimmerman, et al., No. 273312, 2008 Mich App. LEXIS 503 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2008)(farm lease case involving issue of abandonment).