Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Wis. 2d 607 - Cuskey v. McShane

2 Wis. 2d 607 - Cuskey v. McShane’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Swazee v. Lee · Bettack v. Conachen · Reuling v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

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

  1. ““. . . While his testimony of course is not conclusive, Conachen testified that he did not object to the Bettacks’ use of this land until recently because he did not know they were using it. . . Before one neighbor can acquire title by adverse possession of property belonging to another he must do something which clearly brings home to his neighbor the fact that he intends to claim the property against his neighbor and the world. If the Bettacks had built a fence on what they now claim to be the south line and had occupied the premises up to that fence, the erection of the fence and occupation of the premises would be a sufficient declaration of such intention, but a mere dispute as to the location of the true boundary accompanied by acts which do not exclude the neighbor from possession do not give notice to the neighbor of any hostile intent or any purpose to exclude the neighbor from his customary possession of the premises. The plaintiffs are met at the threshold of their claim by the presumption that Conachen is in possession of the lands described in his deed. To overcome that presumption there must be something which shows they intended to exclude him therefrom. The only act of exclusion was the erection of the garage about 1928.” Id. at 569, 570 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where the true owner is in actual possession of a part of the land claiming title to the whole he has the constructive possession of all the land not in the actual possession of the intruder. . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clearly brings home to his [or her] neighbor the fact that he [or she] intends to claim the property against his [or her] neighbor and the world.”
    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.