Aztec Limited, Inc. v. Creekside Investment Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
100 Idaho 566 (1979)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Aztec Limited, Inc. (Aztec) (plaintiff) owned property, a small portion of which lay to the south of Pocatello Creek Road. Another road called Freeman Lane ran to the south from Pocatello Creek Road. Freeman Lane was created as an easement by homeowners south of Aztec’s property so that they could access their homes. But there was a gap between the end of the Freeman Lane easement and Pocatello Creek Road, and the gap was part of Aztec’s property. Reaching Pocatello Creek Road from the Freeman Lane easement required passing over a portion of Aztec’s property (the alleged trespass area). Four homeowners crossed the alleged trespass area for at least 11 years, and Aztec acknowledged that these homes had acquired a prescriptive easement. Creekside Investment Company (Creekside) (defendant) bought property from the owners who created the Freeman Lane easement. Creekside began constructing a 200-unit apartment development on its property and designated Freeman Lane as the sole means of access for the development, resulting in an increase in traffic over the alleged trespass area. Creekside also enlarged the width of Freeman Lane in the alleged trespass area. Aztec brought suit against Creekside for trespass to its land. The trial court found that there was no trespass committed by Creekside and dismissed Aztec’s claim. Aztec appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bakes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.