Sakansky v. Wein
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
169 A. 1 (1933)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Sakansky (plaintiff) owned a parcel of land accessed by an easement across property owned by Wein (defendant). The easement was established by deed over a specifically defined location. Wein wanted to construct a building over the location of the easement and offered to leave a gap between buildings allowing eight feet of headroom for vehicle passage. Wein also offered to construct new access to Sakansky’s property that detoured around the proposed new buildings. Sakansky petitioned for an injunction to prohibit the construction of the new building across the easement way. Over Sakansky’s objection, the trial court heard evidence about the proposed new easement way. The trial court concluded that the eight-foot height restriction for the new easement way would not unreasonably obstruct Sakansky’s easement rights if Wein also created a new access route without height restrictions. The trial court also concluded that the eight-foot height limit would be an unreasonable obstruction if the court were not allowed to consider a proposed alternative route as evidence. Sakansky petitioned the supreme court for review of the admissibility of evidence related to the proposed new easement and for a determination of Sakansky’s entitlement to an injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Woodbury, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 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.
