Heninger v. Dunn
California Court of Appeal
101 Cal. App. 3d 858, 162 Cal. Rptr. 104 (1980)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
David and Elizabeth Heninger (plaintiffs) owned mountain land that adjoined land owned by Bernard and Elise Dunn (defendants). The Dunns mistakenly believed that they had an easement over the Heningers’ property and, over the Heningers’ objection, bulldozed a rough road over the Heningers’ land. In doing so, the Dunns destroyed about 225 trees and vegetative undergrowth on the property but improved access to it, thus increasing the property’s value by $5,000, from $179,000 to $184,000. The Heningers had wished to leave their property unimproved and in its natural forested state. The Heningers sued the Dunns for trespass. The trial court found that the cost to replace the dead trees was $221,647, while the cost to restore the vegetative undergrowth, including planting of tree saplings, was $19,610. The court declined to award damages based on the court’s belief that the Heningers could not recover restoration costs that exceeded diminution in value, and there had been no diminution in value. The Heningers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Christian, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
