Court Rulings

EMPLOYMENT LAW - Employee of political subdivision immunity for negligent act status of worker employee or independent contractor factors for determination control over performance of work specialized skill or distinct occupation conflicting evidence on factors denial of summary judgment.

Request for writ of mandamus granted.

This appeal concerns a dispute over an easement agreement ("the Agreement"). In 1995, Samir F. Mishu and Faud E. Mishu, d/b/a M&M Investments ("M&M"), conveyed the eastern parcel of certain land it owned to Excellent Properties, L.P. ("Excellent"). The parties also entered into the Agreement, which provided for a future easement that would connect their properties. The easement's precise location and dimensions were undefined. Years passed, both properties put in curbing without cuts on their boundaries, and the easement went unutilized. In 2015, Downey Oil Company, Inc. ("Downey"), then lessee of the western parcel, sought for the first time to construct and use the easement. Slyreal Properties, Inc. ("Slyreal"), then owner of the eastern parcel, refused. Downey and M&M ("Plaintiffs," collectively) brought suit against Slyreal, Pinnacle Bank and Hugh Queener, trustee ("Defendants," collectively) in the Chancery Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court"). Defendants asserted adverse possession and abandonment. After a trial, the Trial Court ruled for Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. We find and hold, inter alia, that Defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the easement was extinguished by adverse possession or that it was abandoned by Plaintiffs. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court, and remand for a determination of the easement's location and dimensions.

Judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota's allowance of unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7).

Unemployment-contribution rate—The language in R.C. 4141.24(G)(1) requires concurrent ownership, management, or control of both employers at the time that the business or trade is transferred—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and trial court's judgment reinstated.

The defendants appealed from an entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the hearing justice erred when he determined that the plaintiffs' lot had an easement appurtenant to travel across all of the defendants' properties to access Seaweed Beach because the plaintiffs did not have a "legal means" to access Seaweed Beach. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had demonstrated a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a proper determination of whether or not the plaintiffs have a right to cross over any of the defendants' properties to reach the Seaweed Beach easement.