Jewell v. Kroo
| Decision Date | 14 February 1974 |
| Citation | 518 P.2d 1305,268 Or. 103 |
| Parties | Grant E. JEWELL and Marjorie A. Jewell, husband and wife, Appellants, Leo S. Mitzkowski and Camille Mitzkowski, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. John KROO and Jane Doe Kroo, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
George H. Layman and Allyn E. Brown, Newberg, for the petition.
No appearance contra.
Defendants filed a petition for rehearing, inviting us to change that part of our opinion which determined water right priorities. We decline the invitation.
Defendants also call to our attention that the 70 days originally decreed by the trial court to complete the dam have long since passed because of plaintiffs' appeal. No additional time was set by our opinion to allow completion by defendants. Any evidence in the record concerning the time necessary for completion would not now be applicable because of the difference in the time of the year and the resultant water flow. In the absence of the parties' being able to agree upon it, we direct the trial court, after the taking of testimony, to set a period for completion of the dam by defendants.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Nance
...findings. Haines Com'l Equip. Co. v. Butler, 268 Or. 660, 664, 522 P.2d 472 (1974); Jewell v. Kroo, 268 Or. 103, 106, 517 P.2d 657, 518 P.2d 1305 (1973). We are persuaded by our review of the record that defendant had rendered services at least equivalent in value to that of the transferred......
-
Tooker v. Feinstein
...whether or not a particular use or act is reasonably necessary depends upon the factual circumstances of each case. Jewell v. Kroo, 268 Or. 103, 106, 518 P.2d 1305 (1974); Miller v. Georgia-Pacific, 48 Or.App. 1007, 1016, 618 P.2d 992 Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the ......
-
Davis v. NYE Ditch Users Improvement Dist.
...another's property to access the shared water utility. See Jewell v. Kroo, 268 Or. 103, 106, 517 P.2d 657, adh'd to on reh'g, 268 Or. 103, 518 P.2d 1305 (1974) (owner of dominant estate has right to enter servient estate to do anything reasonably necessary to the proper exercise of easement......
-
Tipperman v. Tsiatsos
...whether or not a particular use or act is reasonably necessary depends upon the factual circumstances of each case. Jewell v. Kroo, 268 Or. 103, 106, 518 P.2d 1305 (1974); Miller v. Georgia-Pacific, 48 Or.App. 1007, 1016, 618 P.2d 992 Tooker v. Feinstein, 131 Or.App. 684, 687, 886 P.2d 1051......