Martin v. Proctor’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Pettus v. Keeling (1987), Ward v. Harper (1987)
27 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.
Relationships
Relies on Craig v. Kennedy · Eagle Lodge, Inc. v. Hofmeyer · Witt v. Creasey · McIntosh v. Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Co. · Markham v. Hall
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to establish a private right-of-way over the lands of another by prescription, it must appear that use of the roadway by the claimant was adverse, under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner over the land over which it passes, and that such use has continued for a period of at least twenty years. [Citations omitted.] We have said many times that “where there has been an open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of a road across the land of another for at least twenty years, the use will be presumed to be under claim of right, and places upon the owner of the servient estate the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the use was permissive, and not under a claim of right.” [Citations omitted.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the use originates by permission, it is presumed to continue with permission unless the conduct of the user is sufficient to apprise the owner of the servient tenement that the user is asserting a claim adverse and hostile to his rights. “An easement will not arise by prescription simply from permission of the owner of the servient estate, no matter how long the permissive use may continue. [Citations omitted]. And having begun by permission, it will, in the absence of some decisive act on the part of the owner of the dominant estate indicating an adverse and hostile claim, continue to be regarded as permissive, especially when the latter’s use of the easement is in common with its use by others.” [Citations omitted]. Witt v. Creasey, 117 Va. 872, 876 , 86 S.E. 128, 129 (1915). Absent such a decisive act on the part of a neighbor using a road opened by a landowner for his own use, the neighbor can never acquire a prescriptive easement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.