Griffin v. Solomon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The reason is that possession of one tenant in common is prima facie the possession of all, and the sole enjoyment of rents and profits by him does not necessarily amount to a disseizin. Hence, for the possession of one tenant in common to be adverse to that of his co-tenants, knowledge of his adverse claim must be brought hime to them directly or by such acts that notice may be presumed. In order for the possession for the tenant in common to be adverse to that of his co-tenant, knowledge of his adverse claim must be brought home to them directly or by such notorious acts of unequivocal character that notice may be presumed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coulson v. Hillmer

2. “... In order for possession of a tenant in common to be adverse to that of his cotenants, knowledge of the adverse claim must be brought home to them directly or by such notorious acts of unequivocal character that notice may be presumed. Griffin v. Solomon, 235 Ark. 909 , 362 S.W. 2d 707 . Stronger evidence is required when a family relationship exists than in other cases. McGuire v. Wallis, 231 Ark. 506 , 330 S.W. 2d 714 ; Ueltzen v. Roe, 242 Ark. 17 , 411 S.W. 2d 894 . The burden of proof was upon appellee. Smith v. Kappler, 220 Ark. 10 , 245 S.W. 2d 809 . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thweatt v. Halmes