Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 Cal. App. 2d 237 - Morse v. Miller

128 Cal. App. 2d 237 - Morse v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2016

18 state decisions

601954196019701980199020002010decided

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 42 Cal. 2d 235 - Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento County · Schwerdtle v. County of Placer · O'BANION v. Borba · Niles v. City of Los Angeles · City of San Francisco v. Canavan

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

  1. ““When ... a litigant seeks to prove dedication by adverse use, the inquiry shifts from the intent and activities of the owner to those of the public. The question then is whether the public has used the land ‘for a period of more than five years with full knowledge of the owner, without asking or receiving permission to do so and without objection being made by anyone.’ ” (Gion, p. 38.) “[The] public use may not be ‘adverse’ to the interests of the owner in the sense that the word is used in adverse possession cases. If a trial court finds that the public has used land without objection or interference for more than five years, it need not make a separate finding of ‘adversity’ to support a decision of implied dedication.” (Gion, p. 39.) “If the owner has not attempted to halt public use in any significant way, however, it will be held as a matter of law that he intended to dedicate the property or an easement therein to the public, and evidence that the public used the property for the prescriptive period is sufficient to establish dedication.” (Italics added; Gion , p. 41.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “primarily as a promotional venture to attract prospective purchasers of [the subdivided lots] to the premises.”
    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.