Also known as: praescriptiones · prescription
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A defensive plea in an action to recover land by which the defendant asserts ownership based on continuous possession for a prescribed time.
Phoebe Park drove maintenance trucks across Paul Peterson's gravel path several times each week for eighteen years to reach a backbone connection. The use remained open and without any permission or interruption from successive owners. Because the passage satisfied the requirement of continuous and uninterrupted conduct for the full period of prescription, Phoebe acquired a prescriptive easement.
Peter Pratt occupied a parcel held in trust for twenty years, openly denying the beneficiaries' rights. The trustee never objected during the statutory period. Because the continuous adverse possession ran against the trustee, the benefit of praescriptio accrued equally to all beneficiaries including those holding future interests.
Penelope Price's physician prescribed a medication manufactured by Progressive Healthcare. The manufacturer had provided the physician with complete warnings about arrhythmia risks. Because the physician acted as learned intermediary, Progressive Healthcare avoided liability for failure to warn Penelope directly.
Priscilla Parks used a path adversely for ten years before selling her land to Pioneer Energy. Pioneer continued the identical use for another eight years. The benefit of the prescriptive easement accrued to both the original user and the successor in privity.
Portia Price received a prescription drug from her doctor after the manufacturer supplied adequate risk information to the medical community. The physician evaluated the warnings and chose to prescribe the medication. The manufacturer therefore satisfied its duty and incurred no direct liability to Portia.
Pauline Price held a future interest in land when an adverse occupant began continuous possession. The period of prescription did not commence until Pauline's interest became possessory. Once the full statutory period ran against the present holder, praescriptio barred recovery of the land.
Sibbach initiated an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages for bodily injuries that occurred in Indiana. Wilson & Co. filed an answer denying the complaint's allegations and moved for an order compelling Sibbach to undergo a physical examination by a court-appointed physician to assess the nature and extent of her injuries. The district court granted the motion and directed Sibbach to submit to the examination. Upon Sibbach's refusal to comply, Wilson obtained an order requiring her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Sibbach responded by contesting the court's authority to issue the examination order, pointing out that Indiana courts permitted such orders while Illinois courts did not, and that neither state had a governing statute. The district court found Sibbach in contempt and ordered her committed until she obeyed the examination order or was otherwise discharged. Sibbach appealed the contempt adjudication to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the question involved. The proceedings centered on Rules 35 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which had been promulgated pursuant to congressional authorization in the Act of June 19, 1934.
View caseThe use must be adverse, open, and continuous and uninterrupted for the period fixed by local law. The Restatement requires that the use match what would be privileged under an existing easement and that it deny the owner's rights without subordination.
Yes when privity exists between the successive users. A written assignment of interests in the route and continuation of the identical use satisfies the privity requirement and permits tacking.
The duration is limited to the precise extent of the denial of the owner's rights during the adverse use. Seasonal or periodic use therefore produces an easement limited to those same seasons or periods.
A subsequent deed granting an easement fixes the extent of rights by its own terms. Circumstances surrounding execution, such as time pressure, help determine the intended scope of the grant.
…people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process? Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):…