Oliver v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Smith v. Bachus (1915), Copeland v. Warren (1926)
49 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 Cooper v. Slaughter · Bernstein v. Humes · Wade v. Gilmer · Huntsvile Belt Line & Monte Sano Railway Co. v. Corpening & Co. · Barlow v. Hamilton
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Plaintiff's theory of the case seems to be that any recognition by former owners of the two tracts of a `made line', wherever it might be, was binding upon them, although their respective deeds and titles were based on the lines of the government survey, and regardless of the absence of an adverse possession up to such line. "This is not the law, for recognition by adjoining owners of a false line as the boundary between them is without effect, unless the party claiming beyond the true line also holds hostile possession up to the false line until the bar of the statute is complete. * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McNeil v. Attaway
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.