Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 KY 815 - Nelson v. Johnson

Nelson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1920

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Cox v. Colossal Cavern Company (1925), Turk v. Wilson's Heirs (1936)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1401920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Normant v. Eureka Co. · Owsley v. Owsley · Bell v. Denson · Commonwealth v. Gibson · Ward v. Edge

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

  1. ““An ‘actual possession’ is such possession as in general terms indicates an exclusive ownership of' the property, and this is usually shown by a residence thereon, an inclosure of at least a portion of the lands, or their cultivation, or at least in every instance such use of the land as is practicable, and for the purposes for which such character of lands are ordinarily used. . . . Where one takes actual and exclusive possession of lands, claiming them as his own and with the intention -to- hold them exclusively as his, and does so with notice to the title holder, or when his acts of possession are so open and notorious that they give notice generally of his intention and purposes. ...””
    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.