to adverse use.” Feldstein, 198 Md. at 295, 81 A.2d at 615; accord Banks, 393 Md. at 709, 904 A.2d at 460 (noting that “[r]espondent’s use of the farm lane was permissive when he was a minor and there was no affirmative evidence that it ever ceased to be permissive .... ”). The case of Hungerford v. Hungerford, 234 Md. 338, 199 A.2d 209 (1964), although addressing adversity in the context of adverse possession, has been considered instructive on the requirement of adverse use in prescriptive easement cases. See Banks, 393 Md. at 709-10, 904 A.2d at 461. We said in Hungerford: It has long been held by this Court that where the original entry and subsequent occupancy of land was under a contract, or -with the consent or permission of the owner, the possession .E.2d 1073, 1085 (2008) (<HOLDING>). It is clear under the facts of this case that
holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding deceptive acts which were not disclosed to the investing public are too remote to satisfy the requirement of reliance because a plaintiff cannot rely on acts of which it is unaware holding that ors 164015 the theft statute consolidated the various forms of unlawful property deprivation into a single offense of theft that does not depend on the relationship between the thief and the owner the type of property or the manner of deprivation holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner holding that various acts on the beachfront were not examples from which it could be presumed that the owner knew that the actors were using the property under a claim of right