Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns 40 acres immediately west of Ds property. An accessible public road runs along the northern boundary of P's property. A 'hollow' runs in an east-west direction dividing P's property in half. No public road provides access to the southern half of Ps' property. To reach it, P used a public road along the east side of Ds property and then went through D's property. D sought to prevent them from passing through its property. P sued D for an easement by necessity. There was evidence that it would cost $3,500 to construct a road across or over the hollow. The evidence on the difficulty in entering the southern part of P's property is all related to vehicular travel. On foot, you can travel through or across it. The evidence indicated that establishing a private road would be of benefit to P, with little burden or inconvenience to D. The trial judge found that the hollow was 'impassable' and that it would not be 'reasonable nor practical' to build a roadway across it. P got the judgment and D appealed. The judgment established a roadway of necessity.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.