EMERSON v. LINKINOGGER
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ARCO%2020110330001.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
REDWINE v. TURNER
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ARCO%2020110330006.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Happy reading
Derek
In Emerson (the first case) we know nothing about the Survey and the Lawyers seem to be barking up the wrong tree as usual. It seems that you can't prove AP unless you admit that the true line is on your side of the fence. So the Lawyers don't check into the recent Survey, they just take it at face value and start arguing AP which in this case I gather got shot down because the fence was down in a lot of places and overgrown (not visible).
The Trial Judge quoted in the second case (Redwine) resolved the problem using basic common sense. Why can't people be reasonable?