2011 Ark. App. 224 - Strother v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ward v. Dapper Dan Cleaners and Laundry, Inc. · 87 Ark. App. 172 - Robertson v. Lees · Myers v. Yingling · 69 Ark. App. 219 - Hedger Bros. Cement & Materials, Inc. v. Stump · 41 Ark. App. 52 - Summers v. Dietsch
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A boundary by acquiescence may arise when adjoining landowners tacitly accept a fence, or other monument, as the visible evidence of a property boundary and apparently consent to it. A boundary by acquiescence that is inferred from landowners’ conduct over many years can imply the existence of an agreement about the location of the boundary line. This boundary line may exist without prior dispute. Neither the mere existence of a fence, nor one party’s subjective belief that a fence is a boundary line will sustain a finding of acquiescence. An express recognition •or agreement between the parties is not necessary. Tacit acceptance may suffice if a mutual recognition of the boundary line can be inferred from the parties’ conduct over a period of years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Foster v. Wasson
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.