Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 MINN 123 - Wallace v. Sache

Wallace v. Sache’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
4
states following
December 1987
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1987

12 state decisions

30190819101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Carey v. Cagney · Churchill v. . Onderdonk · Newcome v. Crews · Green v. Cumberland Coal & Coke Co. · Cutting v. Patterson

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““* * * Some time prior to October 14, 1904, the ‘crop of potatoes had been harvested and removed from said premises. On that date there was no inclosure of any sort around said lot, which was not in any manner inclosed, either by a fence or otherwise, but on said date there was plainly visible ridges of earth on said lot from which the crop of potatoes had been dug, and old potato tops and some small potatoes were then lying upon the surface of the ground. That upon the surface of said lot were then more or less weeds and grass, which had grown upon the same between the potato hills during the season said crop of potatoes had been grown and harvested by the plaintiff as aforesaid.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * It is no answer at all to say that such possession did not indicate ‘what particular individual had been in possession of the lot while the crop was being raised.’ This would have been equally true if the lot had been fenced and also had upon it a vacant house. The improvement was notice of possession. It was incumbent upon the defendant to find the person in possession. “It follows that the right to redeem the property had not been eliminated.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The actual fencing and inclosing of a tract are not necessary to constitute adverse possession. Ordinary use and the taking of the ordinary profits of the land will suffice.” (Italics supplied.)”
    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.