Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 U.S. 59 - Ricard v. Williams

Ricard v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

20 U.S. 59 · 1822

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
33
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 5 district · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably James Carver v. James Jackson (1830), Fletcher v. Fuller (1887)

16 federal appellate · 5 district · 90 state decisions — followed in 33 states

220182218301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 John Green v. John Liter

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

  1. “"Presumptions of this nature are adopted from the general infirmity of human nature, the difficulty of preserving muniments of title, and the public policy of supporting long and uninterrupted possessions. They are founded upon tlie consideration that the facts are such as could not, according to the ordinary course of human affairs, occur, unless there was a transmutation of title to, or an admission of ail existing- adverse title in, the party in possession. They may therefore he encountered and rebutted by contrary presumptions, and can never fairly arise where all the circumstances are perfectly consistent with the nonexistence of a grant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““For the law will never construe a possession tortious unless from necessity. On the other hand, it will consider every possession lawful, the commencement and continuance of which is not proved to be wrongful. Anri this upon the plain principle that every man shall be presumed to act in obedience to his duty, until the contrary appears. When, therefore, a naked possession is in proof unaccompanied by evidence, as to its origin, it will be deemed lawful and co-extensive with the right set up by the party.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In general, it is the policy of courts of law, to limit the presumption of grants to periods analogous to those of the statute of limitations in cases where the statute does not apply. But when the statute applies it constitutes ordinarily a sufficient title or defense independently of any presumption of a grant, and therefore it is not generally resorted to.”
    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.