Pra v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1972
8 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 21 Cal. App. 781 - Janke v. McMahon · 31 Cal. App. 2d 18 - Pedersen v. Reynolds · 89 Cal. App. 2d 98 - Garrett v. Cook · Rast v. Fischer · Fallert v. Hamilton
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Inasmuch as the boundary was properly described in the deeds of both parties, there had been no dispute as to the boundary prior to the survey. There had been only a mistaken acquiescence in what was believed to be the true boundary. In such situation, appellant asserting the south side of the wall to be the south boundary of Lot 38 and respondents’ acquiescing in such assertion, such acquiescence by respondents in a wrong boundary is considered in both law and equity as a mistake and either party is free to claim the true line. (Rast v. Fisher, 107 Cal.App.2d 129, 133 [ 236 P.2d 393 ] ; 4 Thompson on Real Property, p. 210, sec. 3115. See Fallert v. Hamilton, 109 Cal.App.2d 399 , 402 et seq. [ 240 P.2d 1007 ]; Lentell v. McBride, 7 Cal.2d 263, 264 [ 60 P.2d 289 ].) “In Rast v. Fischer, supra, where it was found that there had been no agreed boundary ‘but rather a mistaken acquiescence in what was believed to be the true boundary’ and the prevailing party had paid taxes on his property as described in his deed, the court said: ‘ Thus we have at the outset a situation in which there was no disputed boundary, but a mistake as to the true boundary by the parties concerned. As was said in Pedersen v. Reynolds, 31 Cal.App.2d 18, 28 [ 87 P.2d 51 ], quoting from 4 Thompson on Real Property . . . “An agreement or acquiescence in a wrong boundary when the true boundary is known, or can be ascertained from the deed, is treated both in law and equity as a mistake, and neither party is e”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There had been only a mistaken acquiescence in what was believed to be the true boundary. . . . such acquiescence by respondents in a wrong boundary is considered in both law and equity as a mistake and either party is free to claim the true line."”
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.