Canali v. Satre
Court of Appeals of Illinois
688 N.E. 2d (1997)
- Written by Rebecca Green, JD
Facts
William and Ida Shultz owned a property that they split into five parcels, Parcels A – E, near Plank Road. At the time the Shultzes owned both Parcels D and E, the only access to Plank Road for both parcels was through Parcel D’s driveway. Then, in 1936, the Shultzes sold Parcel D, and Parcel E became landlocked. In 1941, the Schultzes sold Parcel E. Charles Canali (plaintiff) now owns Parcel E. The Satres (defendants) now own Parcel D. Canali sued the Satres, asserting that he had acquired an implied easement of necessity to the driveway located on Parcel D. The Satres argued that Canali failed to satisfy all the requirements to show an implied easement of necessity because the easement had been dormant for years. The Satres also argued that the statute of limitations barred Canali’s claims. The trial court found for the Satres. Canali appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Inglis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
