The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed that easements by necessity exist when an owner sells a landlocked parcel that has no access to a public road. That owner (and subsequent) owners have a right to go over remaining land of the grantor to access to public way. For such a right to be recognized, there must be no alternative access to a public road. The court also found that it presumes that the parties intended to create such an easement and that evidence to the contrary would defeat the claim. (In contrast, some courts hold that owners have no power to create landlocked parcels even if that is the intent of the parties.) "To successfully assert a necessity easement, the party claiming the easement must demonstrate: (1) unity of ownership of the alleged dominant and servient estates prior to severance; (2) the claimed access is a necessity and not a mere convenience; and (3) the necessity existed at the time the two estates were severed."

Conversely, an easement implied from prior use is based on the presumed intent of the parties to continue allowing access across one parcel to get to another when those two parcels used to be owned by the same person and the use of one part of the property for the benefit of the other was obvious and reasonably useful before severance of the parcels and would continue to be so after severance. "[T]he party claiming a prior use easement must prove: (1) unity of ownership of the alleged dominant and servient estates prior to severance; (2) the use of the claimed easement was open and apparent at the time of severance; (3) the use was continuous, so the parties must have intended that its use pass by grant; and (4) the use must be necessary to the use of the dominant estate." Hamrick v. Ward, 446 S.W.3d 377 (Tex 2014).