Questions and Answers Landmark Surveying Contact Us Landmark Surveying
Home Landmark Surveying Services Landmark Surveying Our Company Landmark Surveying Why Survey Landmark Surveying

Survey Related
Court Cases

  SURVEY RELATED COURT CASES:  
  CASES:  
 

C:

 
 

 
  Cadorette v. United States, 988 F. 2d 215, 221 (1st Cir. 1993),
Subject:
 
     
  Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6294, daily Journal D.A.R. 10, 671 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1995),
Subject: Easements,
 
     
  Calvi v. Bittner, 198 Cal.App. 2d 312,
Subject: Deeds, Intent of parties, Deeds and maps,
 
     
  Campbell v. Noel, No. BI-65, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, June 18, 1986, Rehearing Denied July 22, 1986,
Subject: Boundary existed by agreement,
 
     
  Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Harbond Inc., 433 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
Subject:
 
     
  Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Mainer, 440 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983),
Subject:
 
     
  Canal Co v. Kunkel, 33 Leg.Int. 339,
Subject: Contitions when small tracts are surveyed as a block,
 
     
  Caples v. Taliaferro, 144 Fla. 30, 197 So. 872,
Subject:
 
     
  Carbon Run Improvement Co v. Rockafeller, 1 Casey 49,
Subject: Junior & Senior surveys,
 
     
  Carlor Co v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d 897 (Fla.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 821, 74 S.Ct. 37, 98 L.Ed. 347 (1953),
Subject:
 
     
  Carn v. Haisley, 22 Fla. 317,
Subject:
 
     
  Carpenter v. Oswego, 24 N.Y. 655,
Subject:
 
     
  Carroll v. Fordham, Case No. 1D00-2523, Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, March 22, 2001, Opinion Filed,
Subject: Acquiescence,
 
     
  Cartish v. Sopher, 157 So. 2d 150, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3237,
Subject:
 
     
  ____________________________________________________________________________  
  Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_  
     

 

Home Services Our Company Why Survey? Q & A Contact Us
Facebook Landmark Surveying LinkedIn Landmark Surveying