Boundary Dispute

120 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Daniel F. McDAVID and wife v. Roger D. Harris and wife
  375 So. 2d 872· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-10-12
  The court affirmed a boundary dispute judgment, holding that a dependent survey properly retraced the original survey lines and that reliance on a deceased surveyor's field notes was admissible evidence, not excludable hearsay.
• Silas Gibson v. Ratcliff
  339 So. 2d 722· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-12-03
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact existed regarding the validity of a resurvey and the appellants' standing and the appellees' estoppel defense.
• United States v. Herbert Bryant Inc.
  543 F.2d 299· D.C. Cir.· 1976-07-06
  The District Court erred in dismissing the quiet title action for lack of jurisdiction, as Section 103 of the 1945 Act expressly preserved the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to hear such cases.
• Ward v. McCUTCHEON
  43 Fla. Supp. 208· Pinellas Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1975-04-03
  A boundary line dispute between adjacent property owners concerning the location of the northern boundary of Lot 20 in Pinellas Groves. The court resolved the dispute by examining the original developer's intent as expressed in a 1910 bond for warranty deed, finding that the nort
• Michigan v. Ohio
  410 U.S. 420· U.S.· 1973-02-22
  The court overruled Michigan's exceptions and adopted the Special Master's report defining the boundary line between Ohio and Michigan in Lake Erie.
• Finton J. Phelan, Jr. v. Panciteria FAR E., Inc.
  443 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-19
  The court held that the trial court did not err in fixing the boundary based on the ordered survey and rejecting claims of laches, estoppel, waiver, or right to continued occupancy.
• Hutchison v. Harrell's Groves, Inc.
  234 So. 2d 142· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-04-08
  Adverse possession claim based on enclosure since 1922 was improperly dismissed on summary judgment where the sketch submitted was incomplete and the trial court misunderstood the conflicting allegations regarding boundary enclosure.
• Sm/Sgt. Buford Potter v. Wright
  208 So. 2d 638· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-03-12
  Plaintiffs appealed an adverse final decree in a land boundary dispute. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's findings lacked sufficient evidentiary support in the record, particularly regarding equitable estoppel against the United States Government
• Brown v. Semple
  204 So. 2d 229· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-11-21
  In a quiet title action over property on Plantation Key, Florida, the court affirmed summary judgment quieting title in the appellees despite the appellants' claims based on a probate order and conveyance from 1915. The court held that the parties' claimed properties were located
• Alexander v. Champion Waring
  202 So. 2d 606· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-09-26
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence supported the factual findings.
• Sterling J. Klein and Marie T. Klein v. Judson H. Nichols and Estelle Nichols
  182 So. 2d 439· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-02-04
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in vacating the jury verdict and granting a new trial because the verdict's description of the property did not conform to the pleadings or evidence presented.
• Iselin v. Meng
  307 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-24
  The court held that the current suit constitutes a collateral attack on prior judgments which are binding on the appellants, and the district court's dismissal was correct.
• Int'l Paper Co. v. Bridges
  279 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-22
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the true boundary line and prior possession.
• Boyd v. Evans Props., Inc.
  104 So. 2d 109· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-06-20
  In a quiet title dispute over land in Florida, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part a decree granting Evans Properties adverse possession rights. The appellate court confirmed that Evans Properties validly held title to land west of Lake Tarpon but reversed the decree
• Kruger & Birch, Inc. v. DU Boyce
  241 F.2d 849· 3d Cir.· 1957-03-07
  A call for a natural monument in a survey prevails over a conflicting call for course and distance, and prior judgments on boundary lines are binding.
• Anderson v. Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp.
  222 F.2d 333· 4th Cir.· 1955-05-18
  A deed's reference to a plat controls over reversing calls from a monument when a clear mistake in distance is apparent.
• Berning v. Thomas
  5 Fla. Supp. 108· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1954-03-15
  Neighboring property owners disputed the boundary line between their adjoining lots in a subdivided tract. The court dismissed both the plaintiffs' action to quiet title and the defendants' counterclaim, finding insufficient evidence of adverse possession by either party and conc
• Kansas v. Missouri
  340 U.S. 859· U.S.· 1950-10-23
  The Court amends its prior decree to reflect a boundary agreement between Kansas and Missouri, ratified by Congress.
• Kuhn v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
  118 F.2d 400· 4th Cir.· 1941-03-10
  The court held that the trial court erred in certain jury instructions regarding the river boundary, the exclusion of evidence of prior adverse possession, and in instructing the jury that a deed was fraudulent.
• Worrell v. Ford
  91 Fla. 439· Fla.· 1926-03-10
  In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendant Ford regarding five feet of disputed land, but granted a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to establish whether the Worrells had adversely possessed the disputed strip when For