Probst v. Trustees of Board of Domestic Missions’s Empirical Analysis
129 U.S. 182 · 1889
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2006 · most notably Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. Dawson (1894), Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co. (1896)
17 federal appellate · 18 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 Lessee James Ewing v. Jacob Burnet · Harvey v. Tyler · Jerome Pillow v. Truman Roberts · Dodge et al. v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no person, or persons, nor their children, or heirs, shall have, sue, or maintain any action, or suit, either in law, or in equity, for any land . . . but within ten years next after his, her, or their right to commence . . . such suit shall have . . . accrued, and that all suits . . . shall be had and sued within ten years next after the title or cause of action, or suits, accrued or fallen, and at no time after the ten years shall have passed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fair implication in both these cases is that where possession is taken under claim of title, it sufficiently shows the intention of the party to hold adversely within the meaning of the law upon that subject. There is no case to be found which holds that this adverse claim of title must be found in some written instrument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““That an uninterrupted occupancy of land by a person Who has in fact no title thereto, for the period of ten years adversely to the true owner, operates to extinguish the title of the true owner thereto and vests the right to the premises absolutely in the occupier.” (Italics mine.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kenworthy v. Murphy
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.