Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 Wis. 559 - Bettack v. Conachen

Bettack v. Conachen’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
March 1979
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1979

13 state decisions

401940195019601970decided

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 Richard Watkins v. Oliver Holman · Deputron v. Young · Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz · Lessee of James Clarke v. John Courtney · Gilman v. Brown

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. ““. . . In order to constitute adverse possession against the title of the true owner, an adverse claim must be sufficiently open and obvious, both as to the fact of possession and its real adverse character, to apprize the true owner if in charge of the property and in the exercise of reasonable diligence of the fact and of an intention to usurp the possession of that which in law is his own. . . .” Bettack, supra, at 566 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““. . . the possession of one claiming adversely must be of such a character as to apprise the true owner that the possessor claims adversely and to the exclusion of the true owner.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Where a person enters under a deed of title, his possession is construed to be coextensive with his deed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.