Mund v. English
Oregon Court of Appeals
684 P.2d 1248 (1984)
- Written by Patrick Busch, JD
Facts
In 1977, the plaintiffs and the defendant, along with the defendant’s husband, purchased two adjoining parcels of land. They drilled a well on the defendant’s property and installed equipment so that both properties received water from the well. The parties shared the expenses. Relying on being able to receive water from the well, the plaintiffs built a residence on their land, which has no other source of water. The parties then disagreed over the allocation of the water and took their disagreement to court. The plaintiffs claimed that the parties had agreed that they would have permanent access to the well. The defendant claimed that the parties had agreed only that the plaintiffs would have a revocable license to use the well. The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the parties had agreed that the plaintiffs would have a permanent interest in the well, and it entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rossman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.