Hed v. Pullara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “As stated in Hed v. Pullara, supra: “ ‘An ouster, in the law of tenancy in common, is the wrongful disposition or exclusion by one tenant in common of his cotenant or cotenants from the common property of which they are entitled to possession.... There is an ouster if the tenant’s entry into exclusive possession of the premises is accompanied by a claim of right, or by acts tantamount thereto, even though with the mistaken belief in his separate ownership, and the adverse character of the possession is actually known to the other cotenants, or is so open and notorious in its hostility and exclusiveness as to put them on notice, or if it is followed by the tenant’s receipt of rents, incomes, and profits, without accounting for any part thereof, or any demand upon him so to do, under circumstances evidencing his intention to claim sole ownership, or by payments of taxes for so long a period as to raise, a presumption of ouster, or by sale, assuming to transfer the exclusive right to the property, or if the nature of the property is such as to make exclusive possession of it inconsistent with recognition of a cotenan-cy and the tenant is in exclusive possession under claim of right.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. North Colorado Springs Land & Improvement Co.