In my research I find that 'Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 - Fla: Supreme Court 1958' appears to be an important, and often cited case regarding prescriptive easements in Florida. Possibly because of my lack of legal education, an important except from this case is rather unclear to me. It appears that said excerpt could provide measurable insight in determining the answer which I am seeking. I read the statement 'must not be a permissive use' to mean the claimant must be using the lands without the permission of the owner. However, the source of what I perceive as a contradiction is the following language; 'the use or possession is presumed to be in subordination to the title of the true owner, and with his permission'. I will post a comment which will contain the full except.