Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:15 am

New partially published case which I'm curious to see if it gets appealed to the Ca Supreme Court. The published portion considers protection against public use after 1972 for any reason, not just recreational.

Johnston · Post by **Johnston** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:40 am

Thank you steffan. It took 8 pages to explain the court's dissection of implied dedication and Civil Code 1009. After 43 years do we finally have the definitive interpretation of Section 1009?

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:11 am

I don't think so. It looks to me that the published portion of the case only added confusion as it is in conflict with other published appellate level decisions as to recreational vs non recreational use. As the court noted, there is no horizontal stare decisis.

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:12 pm

The Ca Supreme Court granted review of Scher v Burke on 11/24/15. It will be interesting to see if they support the appellate court's expanded definition.

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:08 am

Decision just issued by CA Supreme Court on implied dedication. They have upheld the Court of Appeals decision.

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:08 pm

So... am I correct in reading this decision to mean that there is never an implied dedication for recreational or non-recreational uses (i.e. roads) unless a government entity has used public funds to improve or maintain the road, trail, etc. and it's been used by the public for at least 5 years?

California Surveyors Forums

Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

Re: Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

Re: Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

Re: Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009

Re: Supreme Court decision on CC 1009

Re: Expanded interpretation of Civil Code 1009