Ruick v. Twarkins’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Fisher (1980), 13 Conn. App. 101 - DeVita v. Esposito (1987)
66 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 Paiva v. Vanech Heights Construction Co. · Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg · Folwell v. Howell · Horowitz v. F. E. Spencer Co. · Marquis v. Drost
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The essential elements of an adverse possession sufficient to create title to land . . . are that the owner shall be ousted from his possession and kept out uninterruptedly for a period of fifteen years, by an open, visible and exclusive possession . . . without the license or consent of the owner under a claim of right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“to assert his own title and to deny the title of the other cotenants.... When the grantees recorded this deed and entered and took possession thereunder, their possession [was] presumed to have been under the deed itself and not under the title of the cotenants. They entered under a claim and color of right, and this is equivalent to an ouster of the other cotenants, as to whom they thence held adversely. It showed an actual intent to exclude the cotenant permanently from his rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'Connor v. Larocque“[A] cotenant claiming adversely to other cotenants must show actions of such an unequivocal nature and so distinctly hostile to the rights of the other cotenants that the intention to disseize is clear and unmistakable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'Connor v. Larocque
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.