Cases from cite.case.law:

VITELLI v. HAGGER, 268 So. 3d 246 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . . § 704.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Dr. . . . attorney's fees to either party for the "unreasonable refusal to comply with the provisions of s[ection] 704.01 . . .

GOLDMAN, v. LUSTIG,, 237 So. 3d 381 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (2017), codifies the requirements for obtaining an implied easement . . . same is reasonably necessary for the beneficial use or enjoyment of the part granted or reserved. § 704.01 . . . constructing their own access pier, which would be a "reasonable and practicable way of egress, or ingress." § 704.01 . . .

R. MESSER J. v. SANDER, 182 So. 3d 795 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . the Appellants against the Appellees for a statutory easement by way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01 . . . costs are owed to either party for “unreasonable refusal to comply with the provisions of section] 704.01 . . .

E. BARTEL, M. v. A- C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,, 543 B.R. 743 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (citing 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 (15th ed.)), . . . .

E. BARTEL, G. v. A- C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,, 543 B.R. 727 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (citing 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 (15th ed.)). . . . .

M. GAITO, v. A- C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,, 542 B.R. 155 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (citing 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 (15th ed.)). . . .

FIGUEROA, v. A- C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,, 542 B.R. 333 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (citing 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 (15th ed.)). . . . .

E. BARTEL, r T. McQUEEN, v. CHARLES KURZ COMPANY INC., 110 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . (citing 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 (15th ed.)). . . .

M. RAYBURN, v. C. BRIGHT A., 163 So. 3d 735 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . declaratory relief; (III) common law way of necessity; (IV) statutory way of necessity under section 704.01 . . .

R. MESSER J. v. SANDER, 144 So. 3d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Appellants appeal the trial court’s order denying their request for a statutory easement pursuant to section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes does not become operative in the absence of an ‘absolute necessity . . . provides that the right to an easement is “[b]ased on public policy, convenience, and necessity.” § 704.01 . . . cited by the trial court, this court addressed, inter alia, two issues of interpretation of section 704.01 . . . the legislature incorrectly used the terms “practicable” and “practical” interchangeably in section 704.01 . . .

R. MESSER J. v. SANDER, 144 So. 3d 572 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . judgment entered in their favor whereby Appellants’ request for a statutory easement pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

In F. SHULTZ, Sr. L., 509 B.R. 190 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2014)

. . . from the estate all that is possible for distribution among the creditors.” 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

VILLAGE CARVER PHASE LLC, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO., 128 So. 3d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . 1232 (Fla.2004) (“[A]ll landowners are on notice of statutory ways of necessity by virtue of section 704.01 . . . The estate or interest at issue in Blanton was a statutory way of necessity, governed by section 704.01 . . . the use thereof; provided that such easement shall be used only in an orderly and proper manner. § 704.01 . . .

PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA, LLC, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 126 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Additionally, section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, provides: The common-law rule of an implied grant . . . same is reasonably necessary for the beneficial use or enjoyment of the part granted or reserved. § 704.01 . . . suggested that PGA North could have built a bridge to gain access to PGA Boulevard; however, section 704.01 . . . granted or reserved” while section 704.03 defines “practicable” as “ “without the use of bridge.’” §§ 704.01 . . .

In R. WOOLSEY ASSOCIATES, INC. R. v. J., 454 B.R. 782 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2011)

. . . section 704(a)(2), and is liable for failure to perform his or her duties satisfactorily.” 6 Collier ¶ 704.01 . . .

In OWEN- MOORE,, 435 B.R. 685 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . has accurately completed the schedules and statement of financial affairs.” 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

In NSCO, INC., 427 B.R. 165 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010)

. . . duty to close the estate expeditiously is the trustee’s “main duty,” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 704.01 . . .

PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC. v. EQUESTRIAN CLUB ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a, 949 So. 2d 347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, codifies the common-law rule with respect to the implied grant of . . .

SCHROEDER, v. LAWHON,, 922 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 704.01-.04, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . .

CHILDERS, v. STATE, 931 So. 2d 86 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In Layton, the plaintiff sought to establish a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01( . . . Section 704.01(2) provided for a statutory way of necessity under certain defined circumstances where . . . The Water Management District argued that it was not a “person” under section 704.01(2), because a body . . . Holding that the Water Management District was a “person” under 704.01(2), the Layton court explained . . . : Appellant contends that section 704.01 does not apply to it because it is not a “person” within the . . .

CHILDERS, v. STATE, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In Layton, the plaintiff sought to establish a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01( . . . Section 704.01(2) provided for a statutory way of necessity under certain defined circumstances where . . . The Water Management District argued that it was not a “person” under section 704.01(2), because a body . . . Holding that the Water Management District was a “person” under 704.01(2), the Layton court explained . . . : Appellant contends that section 704.01 does not apply to it because it is not a “person” within the . . .

SZOLLOSY, v. HYATT CORPORATION, v., 396 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Conn. 2005)

. . . .”); see also 29 Moore's Federal Practice § 704.01 [2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2001) ("It is not necessary . . .

SZOLLOSY, v. HYATT CORPORATION, v., 396 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Conn. 2005)

. . . .”); see also 29 Moore’s Federal Practice § 704.01[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2001) ("It is not necessary . . .

STATEN, v. M. GONZALEZ- FALLA, III, 904 So. 2d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Because the trial court did not restrict this easement to the uses which are permitted in section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01(2) permits a statutory way of necessity on the following grounds: Based on public policy . . . After finding that the requirements of section 704.01(2) were met and that Gonzalez-Falla desired to . . . When section 704.01(2) and section 704.04 are read in pari materia, it is clear that the legislature . . . Thus, section 704.01(2) survives constitutional challenge because “it provides a lawful means by which . . .

H. BLANTON, v. CITY OF PINELLAS PARK,, 887 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2004)

. . . 2003), can operate to extinguish a valid claim to a statutory way of necessity authorized by section 704.01 . . . Moreover, our review of the entire H & F Land opinion reveals that our discussion concerned section 704.01 . . . There is no reference in the opinion to section 704.01(2), which creates the right to the statutory way . . . Because a common law way of necessity depends on the existence of “unity of title,” see § 704.01(1), . . . In upholding the constitutionality of section 704.01(2) in 1977, the Court explained: Although state . . .

CIRELLI, L. v. ENT, T., 885 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . sued the adjoining property owners to establish a statutory way of necessity as defined in section 704.01 . . . The issue we must resolve is whether MRTA applies to statutory ways of necessity under section 704.01 . . . exclusive of any common-law right exists....” § 704.01(2), Fla. . . . way of necessity described in section 704.01(2). . . . (1) is ineligible for a statutory way of necessity under section 704.01(2).”) . . .

THRASHER, v. A. ARIDA,, 858 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . consider Thrasher’s counterclaim and ruled that she held a common law easement, as codified at section 704.01 . . .

H. BLANTON, v. CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, Co., 854 So. 2d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Under the other theory, Blanton claimed entitlement to a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

MBI ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L. P. v. CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 301 F. Supp. 2d 873 (W.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . . § 704.01. . . .

SOUTHERN CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. v. UNITED CATALYSTS, INC., 43 F. App'x 379 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

. . . See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 704.01. . . .

SZOLLOSY, v. HYATT CORPORATION, v., 208 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Conn. 2002)

. . . .”); see also 29 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 704.01[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2001) (“It is not necessary . . .

PERKINS, v. SMITH, 794 So. 2d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . agree with the trial judge that this offer by Smith bars Perkins from the benefits provided by section 704.01 . . . consider section 704.03, Florida Statutes (1999), which defines the word “practical” as used in section 704.01 . . .

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 778 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . it was not a "person” within the meaning of an applicable statute: Appellant contends that section 704.01 . . . Had section 704.01 made a distinction between "persons” and "public bodies,” "bodies politic,” or "political . . . However, section 704.01 makes no such distinction, and we see no basis for necessarily assuming the legislature . . . legislature intended to include the state and its agencies within the meaning of "persons” as used in section 704.01 . . .

T. BOYD A. v. WALKER L., 776 So. 2d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Tipton, 732 So.2d 369, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (declaring that section 704.01(1) and (2), Florida Statutes . . . A landowner who has a common-law way of necessity under section 704.01(1) is ineligible for a statutory . . . way of necessity under section 704.01(2). . . .

S. CHODOS, v. KJENSLIE, 773 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 704.01(2) (1997). . . .

In H. BEAN, J. H. v. d b a PMC Co. H., 251 B.R. 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)

. . . value of the estate); In re Martin, 91 F.3d 389, 393 (3d Cir.1996) (citing 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

F. CONNOR H. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 218 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 704.01(1). . . . From the example provided in the statute, we infer § 704.01 to allow a lease to contain indefinite commencement . . .

H F LAND, INC. v. PANAMA CITY- BAY COUNTY AIRPORT AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,, 736 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1999)

. . . today is the effect of MRTA on this way of necessity, now codified under the provisions of section 704.01 . . . BACKGROUND OF MRTA AND SECTION 704.01 In landmark legislation fundamentally revamping Florida property . . . While we also recognize the public policy concerns behind section 704.01, we conclude that it is important . . . Section 704.01(1) in relevant part provides: Such an implied grant [an implied grant of a way of necessity . . .

W. N. KEENE a k a v. JACKSON J., 732 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . The trial court, relying upon section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1995), granted appellees a common . . .

R. HANCOCK T. a k a P. v. TIPTON, 732 So. 2d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . count II Ralph and Sylvia sought a statutory way of necessity over the Hancock property under section 704.01 . . . necessity across the properties of Harold and Polly Tipton and James and Mary Tipton pursuant to section 704.01 . . . Ways of necessity, both implied under common law and statutory, are governed by section 704.01, Florida . . . family land, they are not entitled to a statutory way of necessity over the Hancock property- Section 704.01 . . .

C. E. DUPONT v. A. WHITESIDE, 721 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . In Florida the common law rule of an implied grant of way of necessity has been codified at section 704.01 . . . The term “practicable” as used in 704.01(1) is defined to mean “without the use of bridge, ferry, turnpike . . . Under section 704.01(1), no easement can be inferred from-a conveyance that creates no necessity. . . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, purports to recognize, adopt and clarify this common law rule of . . . The Whitesides argue that section 704.01(1) should not be construed so as to deny them an easement to . . .

H F LAND, INC. v. PANAMA CITY- BAY COUNTY AIRPORT AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,, 706 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Appellant, owner of a land-locked estate, argues that MRTA has to be read in pari materia with section 704.01 . . . policy that “lands should not be rendered unfit for occupancy or cultivation,” which underlies section 704.01 . . .

HIGHLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. PAQUETTE,, 697 So. 2d 235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . of ingress and egress is relevant in an action for a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

GOLDMAN, v. URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a M., 689 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1991). . . . We reverse only that portion finding a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01(2), Florida . . .

GULF OIL REALTY COMPANY, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 685 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar a claim for a way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

In C. MARTIN A. Jo MYERS v. C. MARTIN A. C., 91 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996)

. . . from the estate all that is possible for distribution among the creditors.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

In C. MARTIN A. Jo MYERS C. MARTIN A. C., 91 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996)

. . . from the estate all that is possible for distribution among the creditors.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

F. E. TRAMMELL v. T. WARD, H. E., 667 So. 2d 223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . counsel recognized the Trammells were entitled to a statutory way of necessity, as set forth in section 704.01 . . . section 704.03, which states: That for the purposes of this chapter the word “practicable,” as used in § 704.01 . . . trial court, is not a “practicable” route to the 40-acre parcel, within the contemplation of sections 704.01 . . .

E. ENZOR, Jr. v. RASBERRY, Jr. B. E. W. C., 648 So. 2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: The common law rule of an implied grant of a way . . . Enzor would have been entitled to a statutory way of necessity under section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes . . . denied, 508 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1987); F.S. § 704.03 (1993) (defining the term “practicable” as used in 704.01 . . . Pursuant to § 704.01(1), the burden of proof with regard to the lack of other "reasonable or practicable . . .

A. BELL, v. W. T. COX, Jr., 642 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . This case involves the right to a way of necessity as that common-law concept is recognized in section 704.01 . . . complaint seeking a statutory way of necessity, exclusive of common-law right, pursuant to section 704.01 . . . Bell filed an answer and asserted a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 704.01 . . . First, Bell argues that sections 704.01 and 704.04, Florida Statutes (1991), are unconstitutional and . . . Finally, Bell argues that sections 704.01 and 704.04 are contrary to the public purpose clause of the . . . I agree with Judge Thompson that sections 704.01(2) and 704.04 are constitutional insofar as they provide . . . was completely unreasonable in responding to appel-lee’s request for an easement pursuant to section 704.01 . . . fees and costs against Bell for his “unreasonable refusal to comply with the provisions of section 704.01 . . . First, section 704.01(2), which establishes this statutory way of necessity contemplates that no compensation . . . If Section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes, is held not to violate Article X, Section 6(a), then there can . . .

F. WERNER, E. A. v. UNITED STATES, 9 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . seeking a declaration that they had acquired an easement of necessity pursuant to Florida statute § 704.01 . . . As required by § 704.01(2), plaintiffs’ property is outside a municipality, and it is not disputed that . . . Plaintiffs do not claim a common law easement or an implied easement created by Florida statute § 704.01 . . . They claim a statutory easement of necessity, created by § 704.01(2). . . . adjudicate a claim of the existence of a statutory easement of necessity created by Florida statute § 704.01 . . .

In HUTCHINSON a k a s YADKIN VALLEY BANK TRUST CO. v. McGEE,, 5 F.3d 750 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . duty to close the estate expeditiously is the trustee’s “main duty,” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 704.01 . . .

In HUTCHINSON a k a s YADKIN VALLEY BANK TRUST CO. v. McGEE,, 5 F.3d 750 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . duty to close the estate expeditiously is the trustee’s “main duty,” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 704.01 . . .

McCONE, v. BUTTS,, 616 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 704.01, Florida Statutes, purports to adopt and clarify that common law rule of an implied way . . .

In L. MELENYZER,, 140 B.R. 143 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1992)

. . . main object and purpose of the appointment,’ ” as set out in Section 704(1). 4 Collier on Bankruptcy 704.01 . . .

In ARGO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, S. PEREIRA, v. CENTEL CORPORATION,, 134 B.R. 776 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . from the estate all that is possible for distribution among the creditors. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 704.01 . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. ROBERTS F. a k a S. I., 788 F. Supp. 555 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . Florida Statute 704.01(2) was specifically designed to address this problem. . . .

In A. HENRY, a k a A. J. OBUCHOWSKI, v. STATE OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,, 135 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1991)

. . . from the estate all that is possible for distribution among the creditors. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 704.01 . . .

In HUTCHINSON YADKIN VALLEY BANK TRUST COMPANY, v. NORTHWESTERN BANK,, 132 B.R. 827 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1991)

. . . Riverside-Linden Investment Co., 85 B.R. 107, 111 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1988) (citing 4 Collier on Bankruptcy para. 704.01 . . .

In RIVERSIDE- LINDEN INVESTMENT CO. ESTES HOYT, A O. v. CRAKE, 925 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . Riverside-Linden Investment Co., 85 B.R. 107, 111 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1988) (quoting 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

I. R. T. PROPERTY COMPANY, v. G. SHEEHAN,, 581 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Weir Yacht Club Association, 480 So.2d 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), the Fifth District interpreted section 704.01 . . .

In CROWTHERS McCALL PATTERN, INC. d b a, 120 B.R. 279 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . collect assets even though, in many cases, the debtor would be estopped. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01 . . .

H. HOFFMAN B. v. N. LAFFITTE,, 564 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides as follows: (2) STATUTORY WAY OF NECESSITY EXCLUSIVE . . . owner. — When the owner or owners of such lands across which a statutory way of necessity under s. 704.01 . . .

HANSON, v. WALLER, LVL, 888 F.2d 806 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . Bendix, Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 704.01 [31-704.10 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

M. HUNTER, Jr. A. v. MARQUARDT, INC., 549 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Marquardt, Inc., a twelve-foot common law easement of necessity through their property pursuant to section 704.01 . . . necessity of the easement for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the purchased land specified in section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1987), states, in pertinent part: ... an implied grant [of way of . . .

W. EASTON, v. A. APPLER V., 548 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . (easement by necessity cannot be implied where there is other reasonable access to the property); § 704.01 . . .

M. PARHAM Jo v. K. REDDICK, 537 So. 2d 132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The provisions concerning implied easements are set forth in section 704.01, Florida Statutes, which . . . states: 704.01 Common-law and statutory easements defined and determined.— (1) IMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF . . . The court then quoted the following rationale regarding the two sections of 704.01, which is set forth . . . In fact, appellees’ situation meets all of the section 704.01(2) elements essential for a statutory way . . . —When the owner or owners of such lands across which a statutory way of necessity under s. 704.01(2) . . .

INDEX, INC. v. E. MOON,, 534 So. 2d 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The statute upon which the plaintiff relies, section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1987), similarly and . . .

In RIVERSIDE- LINDEN INVESTMENT CO. a, 85 B.R. 107 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1988)

. . . in accomplishing the main objective and purpose of the appointment_” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy para. 704.01 . . .

J. MORAN, v. W. BRAWNER,, 519 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Jones, pursuant to section 704.01, Florida Statutes (1985), in order to “establish a common law implied . . . practicable way of egress and ingress and the implied grant of easement sought by Plaintiff under Section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01, Florida Statutes (1985), provides as follows: IMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY. . . . action, she could then seek a statutory way of necessity across the Brawner property pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

D. PERKINS, Sr. M. v. S. ANDERSON, C. a L. a, 518 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . We find that appellants are entitled under section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes, to a statutory way of . . . Appellants therefore meet the requirements of section 704.01(2). . . .

BLUE WATER CORP. v. HECHAVARRIA,, 516 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Hecha-varria and the Department of Transportation for a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01 . . .

L. FAISON, v. SMITH,, 510 So. 2d 928 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The complaint also alleged that the action was brought pursuant to section 704.01(2) Florida Statutes . . . existence vel non of a common law easement is an affirmative defense, and not an element of a section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01 defines common law and statutory easements as follows: (1) IMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY . . . the use thereof; provided that such easement shall be used only in an orderly and proper manner. § 704.01 . . . Perez, 284 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), the court discussed the two sections of 704.01 and held: It . . .

In R. NUCKOLLS, M. t a s s R. NUCKOLLS, v. DOMINION BANK OF CUMBERLANDS, N. A., 67 B.R. 855 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1986)

. . . See Vol. 4, Collier on Bankruptcy (15th Ed.), § 704.01, et seq.; Vol. 1, Norton Bankruptcy Law & Practice . . .

LYKES BROS. INC. a v. M. CLEMENTS, L. R. J. C. W. C. F. S. L. C. III, R. C. Jr. L., 501 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . The trial judge found that an implied easement of necessity, section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1985 . . . See sections 704.01(1) and 704.03, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . We submit that these cases were decided under either other states’ statutes unlike Florida’s section 704.01 . . . the trial court found that the plaintiffs were landlocked but not qualified for an implied easement [704.01 . . . the event the trial court found that plaintiffs were entitled to a statutory easement under section 704.01 . . .

D. MATTHEWS W. v. QUARLES,, 504 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Florida has specifically adopted the common law easement by way of necessity in Section 704.01(1), Florida . . . The relevant portion of Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that an implied easement . . .

BOSTICK FOUNDRY COMPANY, v. LINDBERG, A DIVISION OF SOLA BASIC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VENETTA, INC., 797 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1986)

. . . See generally 4 Collier on Bankruptcy H 704.01 at 704-5 (15th ed.1985). . . .

In A. WATERS, NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC. v. A. WATERS,, 60 B.R. 339 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1986)

. . . . § 704.01(4): "Periodic tenant" means a tenant who holds possession without a valid lease and pays rent . . . Wis.Stats. § 704.01(5): “Tenant at will" means any tenant holding with the permission of his landlord . . .

In HYDRONIC ENTERPRISE, INC., 58 B.R. 363 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1986)

. . . See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 704.01[3] at 704-5 (15th ed. 1985). . . .

E. WIMBERLY H. E. J. v. LAKE WEIR YACHT CLUB ASSOCIATION, a, 480 So. 2d 224 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § 704.01, Fla.Stat. (1983): Common-Law and Statutory Easements Defined and Determined.— (1) IMPLIED . . .

SAPP, v. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a, 472 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . This implied grant of a way of necessity has been codified as section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1983 . . . Section 704.01(2) provides that “a statutory way of necessity ... exists when any land ... shall be shut . . . Yet, under section 704.01(2), the servient owner cannot establish a claim of trespass against the dominant . . .

MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., 460 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . strict necessity” such as is required to claim a common-law way of necessity, now codified in section 704.01 . . . For example, the common-law implied grant of a way of necessity is codified in Fla.Stat. § 704.01 and . . .

E. PHARES, v. G. COWLES D., 459 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . correct for reason that the record establishes a statutory way of necessity as contemplated by section 704.01 . . .

In J. BRODD, a k a L. J. J. BRODD, L. v. SEARLE MEDICAL PRODUCTS U. S. A. INC., 44 B.R. 148 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984)

. . . . § 704.01(5), rather than a hold over periodic tenancy as was alleged. . . .

E. HANEY, v. MIZELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a Dr., 744 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . Bendix, Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 704.01[3]-.10 (2d ed. 1982). . . .

K. HYNES, v. CITY OF LAKELAND, a R., 451 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In Count II, appellant alternatively sought, in accordance with section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes ( . . . depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits, there is no implied easement, as defined by 704.01 . . . as a matter of law, a “way of necessity” for aircraft access could not be established under section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01 provides, inter alia: The common law rule of an implied grant of a way of necessity is . . . First, section 704.01(1) does not restrict the application of the doctrine to any particular type of . . .

A. DIXON, v. FEASTER,, 448 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . This case involves the right to a way of necessity as that common law concept is recognized in section 704.01 . . . Dixon and their spouses to establish an easement of necessity under section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes . . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides: (1) IMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY. — The common . . . As section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, makes clear, in order to entitle an owner of a dominant estate . . . Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, purports to recognize, adopt and clarify this common law rule of . . .

In J. MASON, J. MASON, v. INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 709 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . . §§ 323, 363, 704; Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, at ¶¶ 323.01, 363.01[1], 704.01[3]. . . .

In J. MASON, J. MASON, v. INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 709 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . . §§ 323, 363, 704; Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, at ¶¶ 323.01, 363.01[1], 704.01[3]. . . .

In BLACK GEDDES, INC. ASSOCIATED CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION AUSTRALIA LTD. v. BLACK GEDDES, INC. B., 30 B.R. 389 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983)

. . . See also 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th Ed.), ¶ 704.01[3] at 704-4. . . .

STAR ISLAND ASSOCIATES, a a v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BEACH,, 433 So. 2d 998 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See § 704.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1981); Hanna v. Means, 319 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). . . .

FOX INVESTMENTS, a v. A. J. THOMAS, 431 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . this action the appellant sought a statutory easement across the Thomas property pursuant to section 704.01 . . . decision stands for the proposition that the existence of a common law easement as described in section 704.01 . . . (1) bars the establishment of a statutory easement under section 704.01(2). . . .

HENSEL, v. C. AURILIO,, 417 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . possession), or (c) by implication because of necessity, either by virtue of the Common Law, or statute: § 704.01 . . . be imposed only “where there is no other reasonable and practicable” means of ingress and egress. § 704.01 . . .

A. S. MORRILL, v. RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., 414 So. 2d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . developer, who concedes their claim to an implied right-of-way across the developer’s land under section 704.01 . . .

In CRUTCHER TRANSFER LINE, INC., 20 B.R. 705 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1982)

. . . the trustee shall do in accomplishing the main object and purpose of the appointment.” 4 Collier ¶ 704.01 . . .

A. ROY, A. E. A. v. EURO- HOLLAND VASTGOED, B. V. S. A. A. M., 404 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . existence of a right of way of necessity over appellee’s property pursuant to the authority of Section 704.01 . . . By means of Section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes, the Legislature codified the common law rule of an implied . . . We are here dealing with the common law way of necessity, which Section 704.01 described as follows: . . .

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a v. LAYTON,, 402 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Corps of Engineers, so the Corps was an indispensable party, which had not been joined; (2) section 704.01 . . . Section 704.01 provides for a statutory way of necessity. . . . Appellant contends that section 704.01 • does not apply to it because it is not a “person” within the . . . Had section 704.01 made a distinction between “persons” and “public bodies,” “bodies politic,” or “political . . . If no cause of action against the state lies under section 704.01(2), then the public policy purposes . . .

D. W. FRANKLIN, Jr. v. A. BOATRIGHT,, 399 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . supports the trial court’s determination that appel-lees are hemmed in within the meaning of Sections 704.01 . . . dedicated sites and common-law easements were not “practicable,” not being improved, and held that Section 704.01 . . . However, we note that the constitutionality of Section 704.01 was upheld in Deseret Ranches of Florida . . . 704.03 “Practicable” defined. — For the purposes of this chapter the word “practicable,” as used in s. 704.01 . . .

W. E. KIRCHOFF, Jr. E. v. MOULDER BROTHERS, INC. M., 391 So. 2d 347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . affirmative defenses: prescriptive easement, implied easement, and statutory way of necessity under section 704.01 . . .

O. KRAUSE, L. W. v. TITLE TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a, 390 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 704.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). . . . .