Overly v. Hixson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 6 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where the right to an easement is clear and there is no serious dispute as to any of the material facts, equity will assume jurisdiction. Hunter v. McKlveen, 353 Pa. 357 , 45 A. 2d 222 . Pertinent and applicable here is the following statement by the late Judge Dithrich in Overly v. Hixson, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 193 , 82 A. 2d 573 : ‘It is true that equity has no jurisdiction to restrain by injunction a trespass of a permanent nature, such as the obstruction of a right-of-way, where the legal right relied on by plaintiffs is in doubt. In that case the right must first be determined in an action at law. Lackawanna Ice Co. v. Weingartner, 328 Pa. 362 , 195 A. 893 ; Drum v. Dinkelacker, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 91 . But where the right is clear and there is no serious or substantial dispute as to the material facts, a court of equity may exercise its power without a prior adjudication at law. Piro v. Shipley, 211 Pa. 36 , 60 A. 325 . To oust the jurisdiction of equity “It is not enough for the defendant to deny the plaintiff’s right; his denial must be based upon facts which show a substantial dispute.” Miller v. Lynch, 149 Pa. 460, 464 , 24 A. 80 .’ We are all agreed appellants have failed to show any basis upon which to oust the jurisdiction of the chancellor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. Moon Valley Park, Inc.

2. “There can be no doubt whatever of the proposition that where the land is occupied by two persons ... and there is a recorded title in one of them, such joint occupation is not notice of an unrecorded title in the other.... The rule is universal that, if the possession be consistent with the recorded title, it is no notice of an unrecorded title. Indeed, this conclusion is but an application of the general principle that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, actual possession is presumed to be in him who has the record title. It would be intolerable to require an intending purchaser or incumbrancer to ask every person living in a property, be they many or few, whether or not he has a better title than the record owner, who is also in possession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fleet Consumer Discount Co. v. Graves