Presnell v. Cullen
About This Legal Opinion
Court finds that the Conservancy’s vegetation removal activities were reasonable, there was no viable trespass action, and the trial court’s attorney fees award was upheld.
November 2025 Update: Presnell’s opposition to the trail continued even after the 2022 court rulings. In a 2025 ruling, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings in favor of the Conservancy on numerous grounds. In particular, the appellate court ruled that a recreational trail served a public use and could not be defeated by an adverse possession claim. The appellate court also upheld a $15,000 punitive damages award for Presnell’s repeated and intentional obstruction of the trail.
Disclaimer
These resources are provided "as is" for informational purposes only, without warranty of any kind. They do not constitute legal or professional advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship. They may not reflect current legal developments and should be adapted for your organization with qualified professional help. The Alliance is not liable for any damages arising from use of or reliance on these resources. Views in individual posts and third-party links/logos are not Alliance endorsements. The Alliance is committed to equal opportunity and does not condone unlawful discrimination.
For accreditation-related materials, please also consult the Land Trust Accreditation Commission website.