Downing v. Bird’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 588 So. 2d 957 - Department of Law Enf. v. Real Property (1991), Blowers v. Williams (1978)
2 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Zetrouer v. Zetrouer · Plaza v. Flak · J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc. v. Houser · TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVE. FUND v. Claughton · Irion v. Nelson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In either prescription or adverse possession, the right is acquired only by actual, continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant of the lands of another, for a prescribed period. In addition the use must be adverse under claim of right and must either be with the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious, and visible that knowledge of the use by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed to the owner. In both rights the use or possession must be inconsistent with the owner’s use and enjoyment of his lands and must not be a permissive use, for the use must be such that the owner has a right to a legal action to stop it, such as an action for trespass or ejectment.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While title to real estate may be acquired by the exercise of actual exclusive adverse and continued possession for a period of seven years under color of title under our statute, that period of limitation cannot be held to apply to the acquisition by prescription of an easement which is incorporeal, in a corporeal hereditament. The right to continue the easement only in a corporeal hereditament under prescription may only be acquired by an adverse use of the privilege with the knowledge of the person against whom it is claimed, or by use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge will be presumed acquiesced in by the owner of the dominant estate and exercised under a claim of right adverse to the owner and continued by the person so claiming for the full period of 20 years."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is nothing to show that the use made by the public was inconsistent with the rights of the owner to his use and enjoyment of the land, which supports rather than overcomes the presumption that any such use was permissive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.