Reeves v. Porta’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1987
12 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 Holtzman v. Douglas · Chastang v. Chastang · Chapman v. Dean · Ambrose v. Huntington · Laurance v. Tucker
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"During all the period of the alleged adverse possession by plaintiffs, taxes were levied regularly against the property, but they paid none of them. The record owners paid them. Failure to pay taxes is, in itself, evidence against the plaintiffs' claims. Phipps v. Stancliff, 118 Or. 32 , 245 P. 508 ; Looney v. Sears, 94 Or. 690 , 185 P. 925 , 186 P. 548 ; Holtzman v. Douglas, 168 U.S. 278 , 18 S.Ct. 65 , 42 L.Ed. 466 ; Todd v. Weed, 84 Minn. 4 , 86 N.W. 756 . It is held generally that such failure is not conclusive against one claiming title by adverse possession, and this is the rule in Oregon. In a doubtful case, however, it may turn the scales against the claimant. Looney v. Sears, supra. The owner of property is bound to know that such property is subject to assessment for its proportional share of the public burdens. `Ordinarily, a person pays taxes on that which he claims to own.' Phipps v. Stancliff, supra. The failure of one, claiming to hold land in adverse possession as against the legal owner, to have the land assessed to him and to pay the taxes thereon, particularly when he permits the legal owner to pay them, may be regarded as evidence of a furtive possession, or of a permissive one, or of a mere trespass. It is `strong and forcible evidence that the possessor did not intend to claim title adversely to the owner', ( Todd v. Weed, supra) and in this case the trial judge so considered it."”
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.