Tree Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Ridge vs Blaha - Illinois - a large tree trunk extended 5" onto plaintiff's land. Plaintiff succeeded in an injunction preventing neighbor from cutting down the tree, even though most of the tree was on the neighbor's land. [https://treeandneighborlawblog.com/fencerows-and-boundary-trees/#:~:text=See%20the%20Massachusetts%20Rule%2C%20the,common%20property%E2%80%9D%20of%20both%20landowners.] | *Ridge vs Blaha - Illinois - a large tree trunk extended 5" onto plaintiff's land. Plaintiff succeeded in an injunction preventing neighbor from cutting down the tree, even though most of the tree was on the neighbor's land. [https://treeandneighborlawblog.com/fencerows-and-boundary-trees/#:~:text=See%20the%20Massachusetts%20Rule%2C%20the,common%20property%E2%80%9D%20of%20both%20landowners.] | ||
*Holmberg v Bergin - if a planted tree overgrows the boundary, the planter remains the sole proprietor of that tree. Sole proprietor can cause nuisance. Tenancy in common does not cause nuisance. [https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1969/41756-1.html] | *Holmberg v Bergin - Minnesota - if a planted tree overgrows the boundary, the planter remains the sole proprietor of that tree. Sole proprietor can cause nuisance. Tenancy in common does not cause nuisance. [https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1969/41756-1.html] | ||
*Missouri has triple damages but no criminal penalty for tree destruction [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/missouri-laws-neighbor-property-disputes-65239.html] | *Missouri has triple damages but no criminal penalty for tree destruction [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/missouri-laws-neighbor-property-disputes-65239.html] | ||
*Rhodig v Keck - boundary trees planted | *Rhodig v Keck - Colorado - boundary trees planted not as boundary trees, but which end up encroaching, are not treated as property in common [https://treeandneighborlawblog.com/fencerows-and-boundary-trees/#:~:text=See%20the%20Massachusetts%20Rule%2C%20the,common%20property%E2%80%9D%20of%20both%20landowners.]. Trees treated as a partition belong jointly. | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 28 September 2024
- Ridge vs Blaha - Illinois - a large tree trunk extended 5" onto plaintiff's land. Plaintiff succeeded in an injunction preventing neighbor from cutting down the tree, even though most of the tree was on the neighbor's land. [1]
- Holmberg v Bergin - Minnesota - if a planted tree overgrows the boundary, the planter remains the sole proprietor of that tree. Sole proprietor can cause nuisance. Tenancy in common does not cause nuisance. [2]
- Missouri has triple damages but no criminal penalty for tree destruction [3]
- Rhodig v Keck - Colorado - boundary trees planted not as boundary trees, but which end up encroaching, are not treated as property in common [4]. Trees treated as a partition belong jointly.