Backhausen v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “`the law will not imply [a way of necessity] where it has provided another method for obtaining the same at a reasonable expense to the landowner.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ashby v. MAECHLING · 224 Wis. 2d 27 - Schwab v. Timmons

2. ““The question is whether under our recording statutes Albert Hanke took title to the servient estate burdened with the easement of this right of way. Under our recording statutes it is necessarily held that a bona fide purchaser of land without knowledge or actual or constructive notice of the existence of an easement takes title to the same relieved of the burden or charge of the easement. 9 Ruling- Case Law, p. 805; 19 Corp. Jur. p. 940; Taggart v. Warner, 83 Wis. 1 , 53 N. W. 33 . . . . In this case the easement was not created by express covenant in the grant of the north twenty-five acres, and an examination of the record of that deed by Hanke when he purchased the servient estate would not have advised him of the existence of this way. . . . An examination of the record -would have revealed to him that his grantor at one time owned the north twenty-five acres and that he had conveyed it, but the record would not have advised him that it was conveyed to one who had no access to a highway. The most that might be said is that when the record revealed a former co-ownership by Hanke’s grantor of the dominant and servient estate he was put upon inquiry to ascertain whether the severance of the ownership of the two estates was of such a nature as to give the owner of the dominant estate a way of necessity over the servient estate which he was then purchasing. Such a doctrine would be unreasonable. . . . Such a doctrine would be the exercise of an unreasonable solicitude for a ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schmidt v. Hilty-Forster Lumber Co.

3. ““. . . it is contended by appellants that a way of necessity should not be recognized in this case because defendants now and-at all times did have it in their power to acquire a highway to their premises under sec. 80.13, Stats., which confers authority upon the town board to lay out a highway to premises excluded therefrom where the owner of such premises offers to pay the expense of laying out such highway.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Happel v. Schmidt