Tree Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "*Ridge vs Blaha - 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 o...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Ridge vs Blaha - 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. [Ridge v. Blaha, 166 Ill.App.3d 662, 520 N.E.2d 980 (Ct.App. Ill. 1988).] | *Ridge vs Blaha - 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. [Ridge v. Blaha, 166 Ill.App.3d 662, 520 N.E.2d 980 (Ct.App. Ill. 1988).] | ||
*Holmberg v Bergin - if a planted tree overgrows the boundary, the planter remains the sole proprietor of that tree. [https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1969/41756-1.html] | |||
Revision as of 02:25, 28 September 2024
- Ridge vs Blaha - 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. [Ridge v. Blaha, 166 Ill.App.3d 662, 520 N.E.2d 980 (Ct.App. Ill. 1988).]
- Holmberg v Bergin - if a planted tree overgrows the boundary, the planter remains the sole proprietor of that tree. [1]