1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.3d
  4. 149 Cal.App.3d
  5. 149 Cal.App.3d 696 (1983)
 

LICHTY v. SICKELS

Docket No. 28368.

149 Cal.App.3d 696 (1983)

197 Cal. Rptr. 137

MAX LICHTY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHRISTOPHER D. SICKELS, Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

December 9, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

Mitchell, Ashworth, Keeney, Barry & Pike and E. Ludlow Keeney, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and Robert J. Bell for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

COLOGNE, Acting P.J.

On October 1, 1982, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of defendant Christopher D. Sickels after Sickels' motion for summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 437c) had been sustained on the basis that plaintiff Max Lichty's action for an easement by necessity was barred by the statute of limitations. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the statute of limitations...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases