stating that the standard for establishing the dimensions of a prescriptive easement is that which is of “reasonable necessity” to permit the limited use acquired as a prescriptive right
How later courts described this case
- stating that the standard for establishing the dimensions of a prescriptive easement is that which is of “reasonable necessity” to permit the limited use acquired as a prescriptive right
- holding that the burdens that the servient owner may enjoin are those that are “over and above those embraced within the framework of the easement itself’
- stating that, in easement cases, reasonable use “is a question of fact to be decided after considering” the circumstances of the case
- noting that while the “substance of the easement is shown by the usage,” “the form [of the easement] . . . is a question of reasonable necessity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRATT, Justice.
I concur. However, I am treating the discussion in the prevailing opinion pertaining to the question whether or not we should repudiate the common law theory of grant as the basis for the prescriptive right to an easement, as the personal views of the author of that opinion. Upon the merits of that question I do not care, at this time, to make any comment.