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

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

In 2006, P bought land and a home. P has a driveway that connects directly to a public road on the south side of his property. This dispute involves access from the north side. Directly behind and adjacent to P's property, Ds own land, and a home. D's property is 'landlocked' and surrounded on all sides by land owned by other individuals. This case concerns a private, 25-foot-wide gravel lane that borders on the northern edges of both D's and P's property. Ds do not own the gravel lane, but it is their only access to a public highway (the Leetown Pike/Route 15). P uses the gravel lane to access their property. D objected to this use because d was contractually obligated to maintain the gravel lane. P sued to quiet title and for a declaration that he had a prescriptive easement to use the lane. P claimed that the gravel lane had, 'by its nature and duration of its open, continuous, notorious and adverse use, as to any owner of the parcel' become a 'community driveway servicing as an ingress and egress easement' to the P's property. P got the verdict, and D appealed.

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

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