Schultz v. Dew
Supreme Court of South Dakota
564 N.W.2d 320 (1997)
In 1946, Lawrence Pepka and Pearl Pepka obtained two parcels of residential property, which were then conveyed through a series of people to Bernard Pepka, Mary Carter, and Mark Shultz (plaintiffs). The neighboring property was owned by Thomas Dew and Denise Dew (defendants). The plaintiffs used a strip of land that they believed to be on their property as a driveway with a grassy border. The plaintiffs put gravel on the driveway, paved the driveway, mowed the grass, and planted trees along the driveway in the grassy area. In 1993, the plaintiffs decided to sell the property, and the Dews asserted ownership of the strip of land containing the driveway and trees. The plaintiffs brought suit, claiming adverse possession. The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and the Dews appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.