Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Okla. 180 - Wirick v. Nance

Wirick v. Nance’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2019

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

90193619401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Vance v. Vance · Akley v. Bassett · Howard v. Manning · Flesher v. Callahan · Winterburn v. Chambers

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

  1. ““While the mere possession of land by one tenant in common does not usually amount to an ouster of his cotenant, or to adverse possession as against the claim of his cotenant, and is usually deemed a possession in subordination to the rights of the cotenant, yet the circumstances of the entry and possession may be sufficient to show, by clear and convincing proof, a denial or repudiation of his cotenant’s rights so as to constitute adverse possession. “A possession of real estate which is open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with a claim of ownership such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises are not held in subordination to any title or claim of others, but against all titles and claimants, is an adverse possession.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the whole record conclusively shows that the possession of the defendants was at all times open, visible, continuous and exclusive with claims of absolute ownership, such as would undoubtedly constitute notice to parties seeking information upon the subject that the premises were not held in subordination to any title or claim of others, but against all claimants of title.”
    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.