Davis v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1979
8 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well understood with us that the right to a public way cannot be acquired by adverse user, and by that alone, for any period short of twenty years. It is also established that, if there is a dedication by the owner, completed by acceptance on the part of the public, or by any persons in a position to act for them, the right at once arises, and the time of user is no longer material. The dedication may be either in express terms, or it may be implied from conduct on the part of the owner; and, while an intent to dedicate on the part of the owner is usually required, it is also held that the conduct of the owner may, under certain circumstances, work a dedication of a right of way on his part, though an actual intent to dedicate may not exist. These principles are very generally recognized and have been applied with us in numerous and well considered decisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. . Alexander“In the present case the defendant denies the right of plaintiff to recover damage for the pipe line running along the State Highway No. 10, plaintiff having a fee-simple title to the land. In Teeter v. Tel. Co. , 172 N.C. 785 , it is said: `It is not denied by defendant that the telegraph line superimposed upon a railroad right of way is an additional burden which entitled the owner to compensation. Hodges v. Tel. Co. , 133 N.C. 225 ; Phillips v. Tel. Co. , 130 N.C. 513 .' To the same effect is a water main.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. . Alexander“To take over and assume exclusive control for the benefit of the State of any existing county or township roads, and to locate and acquire rights of way for any new roads that may be necessary for a State highway system, with full power to widen, relocate, change, or alter the grade or location thereof; to change or relocate any existing roads that the State Highway Commission may now own or may acquire,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. . Alexander
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.