MacCaskill v. Ebbert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2017
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Martino v. Fleenor · State Highway Commission v. Deal · Wiese v. Thien · Gaines v. Lunsford · Close v. Rensink
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Reasonable necessity has no formulaic meaning. It varies with the facts of each case. Obviously, one seeking an easement need not show that a legally available route is absolutely impossible to use. There are few natural obstacles that could not be surmounted by modem engineering if unlimited resources were committed to the task. On the other hand, neither is it sufficient merely to show that the legally available route would be inconvenient or expensive. Bob Daniels & Sons v. Weaver, [ 106 Idaho 535 , 681 P.2d 1010 (Ct.App.1984) ]. Rather, an easement ... should be granted only if the difficulty or expense of using the legally available route is so great that it renders the parcel unfit for its reasonably anticipated use. As our Supreme Court has explained, “[i]f the applicant’s outlet to the highway affords him practical access thereto, or can be made so at reasonable expense, he is not entitled to the establishment of the way as a necessity.” Eisenbarth v. Delp, 70 Idaho 266 , 215 P.2d 812 (1950). Moreover, the benefits derived from the easement must not be outweighed by possible damage or inconvenience to the owners of the servient property. See, e.g., Gaines v. Lunsford, 120 Ga. 370 , 47 S.E. 967 (1904); Wiese v. Thien, [ 279 Mo. 524 , 214 S.W. 853 (Mo.1919)]. Reasonable necessity is a question of fact for the trial court. McKenney v. Anselmo, 91 Idaho 118 , 416 P.2d 509 (1966). The burden of proof rests with the party seeking the easement. Eisenbarth v. Delp, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Erickson v. Amoth“When each element is proven, an easement by necessity will be recognized unless a countershowing is made that such an easement has been explicitly bargained away by the parties or their predecessors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Visser v. Craig
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.