Amey v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
1 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably Krupp v. Krupp (1967), Laird Properties New England Land Syndicate v. Mad River Corp. (1973)
1 district · 56 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 Thompson v. Smith · Francis v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. · Vermont Marble Co. v. Eastman · Neill v. Ward · Smith v. Martin
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To acquire title to the limits of a boundary that has been established by acquiescence there must be a mutual recognition of the particular line by the adjoining owners coupled with continuous possession by one or both parties for the length of time required for adverse possession. * * * “To be conclusive, the acquiescence must endure for the period of fifteen years, (cases cited) Passive compliance for a lesser period of time will not settle the issue, and if done by agreement the contract must meet the requirements of the statute of frauds.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““To constitute continuous possession of lands, the law does not require the occupant to be present on the site at all times. The kind and frequency of the acts of occupancy, necessary to constitute continuing possession, are dependent on the nature and condition of the premises as well as the uses to which it is adapted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the duty of the court, in making findings, to sift the evidence and state the fact. There is no requirement to relate the opposing claims of the litigant, nor to detail the evidence advanced in support of the respective claims.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Savard v. George
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.