Opinion ID: 3182848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: 1. Did the district court err on remand by refusing to allow a trial by jury on issues of fact? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion on remand by failing to allow and consider new evidence and new witnesses? 3. Did the district court err on remand by failing or refusing to incorporate its August 16, 2012 judgment into its November 6, 2014 judgment, so as to precisely define the easement awarded to New Sweden and address: (1) the length of the easement and where it starts and ends; (2) the width of the easement and where it starts; (3) the access and 2 This judgment was reissued on November 6, 2014, in order to comply with Rule 54(a) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 entry points to the easement; (4) the express encroachments, including vegetation, which unreasonably or materially interfere with New Sweden’s use of the easement; and (5) responsibility for removal of each specific encroachment? 4. Did the district court err on remand by failing to: (1) limit the removal of encroachments that do not immediately, unreasonably, and materially interfere with the use of the mower or excavator; (2) restrict the use of the mower to only those areas on Morgan’s land that can or need to be mowed; and (3) restrict the use of the excavator to when and where the use of that equipment is actually needed? 5. Is New Sweden entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal?