Questions and Answers

	SURVEY RELATED COURT CASES:

	Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_		Index

	C:

	Colvin v. Fell, 40 Ill. 418, Subject:

	Com. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Resources v. Garner, 896 S.W. 2d 10 (Ky. 1995), Subject: Easements,

	Commonwealth v. City of Roxbury, 9 Gray 465, Subject:

	Conn v. Penn, 1 Pet. C.C. 496, Subject: Actual line surveyed controls over returns,

	Cook v. Adams, 89 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1956), Subject:

	Cooper v. Polos, 898 S.W. 2d 237 (Tenn.App. 1995), Subject: Easements

	Cooper v. Smith, 9 Ser. & R. 26, Subject:

	Copeland v. City of Oakland, 19 Cal.App. 4th 717 (1993), 23 Cal.Rptr. 2d 719, Subject: Dedication of street, Acceptance,

	Costal Petroleum Co v. American Cyanamide Co., 454 So. 2d 6, Subject:

	Cotsifas v. Conrad, 137 Or.App. 468, 905 P. 2d 851 (Or.App. 1995), Subject: Easements,

	County of San Diego v. California Water etc. Co., 30 Cal. 2d 817 [L.A. No 19546. In Bank November 10, 1947], Subject: Estoppel, Roads, Emnient domain, Abandonment and relocation,

	County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, 90 Civ. 1302 (GLG) United States District Court for the Sourhern District of New York, 793 E.Supp. 1195 June 2, 1992, Decided, Subject:

	Cox v. Clanton v. Maupin, Boise, May 2002 term, 2002 Opinion No. 94, Filed July 2, 2002, Subject: Boundary by acquiesence, boundary by agreement, Aderse possession, Estopple,

	Cox v. Hart, 43 S.Ct. 154 (Cal. 1922), 260 U.S. 427, 67 L.Ed 322, Subject:

	____________________________________________________________________________

	Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_		Index