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:  
     
  Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_   Index  
     
 

C:

 
 

 
  Case v. Loftus, 14 Sawy. 213, 39 Fed. Rep. 730, 5 L.R.A. 684,
Subject:
 
     
  Caufman v. Congreation, 6 Bin. 59,
Subject: Evidence of surveys,
 
     
  Cavazos v. Trevino, 8 Wall. 773,
Subject:
 
     
  Cave v. Crafts, 53 Cal. 135,
Subject: Easements,
 
     
  C.B. Ailing Reality Co v. Olderman, 96 A. 944, 947 (Conn. 1916),
Subject:
 
     
  Central Pacific Railway Co v. Alameda County, 284 U.S. 463 (1932),
Subject: RS2477 Roads, Highways definition,
 
     
  CFD Payson LLC v. Christensen, 2015 UT App 251
Subject: Wrongful-lien, Slander-of-title,
 
     
  Chandler v. Hibberd, 332 P. 2d 133, 165 Cal. App. 2d 39,
Subject: Proportionment of lots,
 
     
  Chandler v McCard, 38 Me. 564,
Subject: Metes vrs bounds,
 
     
  Chaney v. Haynes, 250 Va. 155, 458 S.E. 2d 451 (Va. 1995),
Subject: Easements,
 
     
  Cherry v. Boyd, Litt. Sel. Cas. 8 (Ky. 1800),
Subject: Declaration of a surveyor,
 
     
  Chisolm v. Caines, 67 Fed. Rep. 285,
Subject:
 
     
  Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal. App. 2d 554 (1952),
Subject: Encroachment,
 
     
  Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v. Whitley Heights Civic Assn., 23 Cal. App. 4th 812 (1994), 28 Cal. rptr. 2d 451 [No. B077760. Second Dist., Div. Seven Mar 23 1994],
Subject: Abandonment of a public road,
 
     
  ____________________________________________________________________________  
     
  Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_   Index  

 

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