Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
12 F.3d 762 (1994)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
The Epstein Family Partnership (EFP) owned property which they subdivided and sold a portion to the Kmart Corporation. EFP kept a landlocked parcel for the benefit of which it reserved a right-of-way easement over the property sold to Kmart. EFP then leased its property to the Levitz Furniture Company. The lease provided that Levitz could not erect or install exterior signs without EFP’s written consent. Kmart tried to remove a sign that Levitz had erected on Kmart’s property, and EFP sought to enjoin Kmart. Levitz claimed that it had an implied easement to erect the sign. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that an implied easement for the signage existed and enjoined Kmart from removing the sign. Kmart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hutchinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.