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

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

Sakansky (P) owned a parcel of land, along with an easement over a parcel of land belonging to Wein (D). The easement was expressly granted in an earlier deed and did not contain any restrictions as to use. D wanted to construct improvements on his property, which would interfere with P's easement. However, D proposed to leave an opening in the new building where it crosses the easement so that P would still have use of the easement on the ground, as well as eight feet of headroom. D also proposed to give P a new means of access over D's property to the same point as the original easement. At trial, P objected to the introduction of evidence regarding the new way. The lower court allowed the evidence, and applied the 'rule of reason,' finding that D should be allowed to build over the old easement, as long as they allowed P access to the new one. P appealed.

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

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