Foscue v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 1976 · most notably Sessum v. Hemperley (1957), Sattler v. Pellichino (1954)
30 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 Mason v. United States · Opdenwyer v. Brown · Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club v. United States · Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co. · Siegel v. Helis
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The ownership of immovables is prescribed for by thirty years without any need of title or possession in good faith."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The cases are uniform in holding that the possession must not only begin but also that it must continue as owner and adverse to the true owner.” * . * * * * * “The acknowledgment which constitutes an interruption that may defeat the adverse possessor’s claim of title is a factor separate and apart from the essential elements by which title may be acquired by adverse possession. The acknowledgment cannot be so restricted as to eliminate from the law one of the essential elements which must be established in order to acquire title by the mere possession for the time necessary to prescribe. Article 3520 of the Civil Code merely established a means to prevent what might otherwise be the effect of such possession. The acknowledgment may be sufficiently broad to evidence the intent of the possessor no longer to possess as owner, or to show that his original intent was not to possess as owner. But this is not essential. The intention of the possessor not to possess as owner or his acknowledgment of title in another may be shown, and the effect of either is sufficient to defeat the claim of ownership by prescription . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nor can defendants maintain their claim of title under the prescription of thirty years as provided by Article 852 of the Civil Code. The prescription referred to in the codal article is a boundary prescription. * * *”
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.