DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 740 A.2d 1019.

13 citing documents.

  • Loon Valley Homeowner's Association v. Lewis G. Pollock & a. 189 A.3d 888 N.H. 2018
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 485 (1999).
  • Elizabeth Merry, Trustee of the Elizabeth H. Merry 2012 Revocable Trust v. Gilbert M. Costa & a. N.H. 2017
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999).
  • City of Rochester v. Marcel A. Payeur, Inc. & a. 169 N.H. 502 N.H. 2016
    “[T]he nature of the use must have been such as to show that the owner knew or ought to have known that the right was being exercised, not in reliance upon the owner’s toleration or permission, but without regard to the owner’s consent.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999) (emphasis added; brackets and quotation omitted).
  • Robert Jesurum v. WBTSCC Limited Partnership & a. 151 A.3d 949 N.H. 2016
    “The nature of the use must have been such as to show that the owner knew or ought to have known that the right was being exercised, not in reliance upon the owner’s toleration or permission, but without regard to the owner’s consent.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999) (brackets and quotation omitted).
  • Brian A. Gillis, as Trustee of the Gillis Family Irrevocable Trust of 2012 v. Randall S. Lawson & … N.H. 2016
    The scope of a prescriptive easement is determined by the prior use of the land, see Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 490 (1999), which is a question of fact.
  • David Blair & a. v. Penny A. Keough & a. N.H. 2015
    When making a claim for a prescriptive easement, it is not enough to claim a right to cross or invade “the owner’s property generally, but rather, [the claim] must be for a definite, certain and particular line of use.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 490 (1999) (quotation omitted); see also Vigeant v. Donel Realty Trust, 130 N.H. 406, 408 (1988).
  • VanDeMark v. McDonald's Corp. 904 A.2d 627 N.H. 2006
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999).
  • Berry v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. 879 A.2d 1124 N.H. 2005
    “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we look at the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the *410 non-moving party.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999) (quotation omitted).
  • Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro 868 A.2d 1002 N.H. 2005
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481 (1999).
  • Mahoney v. Town of Canterbury 834 A.2d 227 N.H. 2003
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 485-86 (1999).
  • Bonardi v. Kazmirchuk 776 A.2d 1282 N.H. 2001
    in such a manner as to give notice to [the plaintiff] that an adverse claim was being made to it.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484 (1999) (quotation omitted).
  • Lake v. Sullivan 766 A.2d 708 N.H. 2001
    For purposes of summary judgment, a disputed fact is material “if it affects the outcome of the litigation under the applicable substantive law.” Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484, 740 A.2d 1019, 1021 (1999) (quotation omitted).
  • Blagbrough v. Town of Wilton 755 A.2d 1141 N.H. 2000
    Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481, 484, 740 A.2d 1019, 1021 (1999) (quotations, citations, and brackets omitted); see RSA 491:8-a (1997).