Rountree v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In establishing adverse possession as between coterminous owners, the controlling fact is one of intention. There must be an intention to claim the land up to the boundary. Mere possession is not a sufficient basis for adverse possession. McLester Building Co. v. Upchurch, 180 Ala. 23 , 60 So. 173 [ (1912) ]; Bates v. Southern R. Co., 222 Ala. 445 , 133 So. 39 [ (1931) ]; Smith et al. v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338 , 124 So. 898 [ (1929) ]; Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525 , 23 So. 136 , 67 Am.St.Rep. 182 [ (1898) ]; Barbaree v. Flowers, 239 Ala. 510 , 196 So. 111 [(1940)]. “In Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 528 , 23 So. 136 supra, the rule long adhered to in this jurisdiction is stated as follows: We have frequently had occasion to consider the question as to when the possession of a coterminous landowner becomes adverse to his neighbor, and to determine the rule applicable to the facts of particular cases. Possession, to be adverse, must be held under a claim of right, and there can be no adverse possession without an intention to claim title. Hence it is essential to the proper determination of the character of the possession to consider the intention with which it was taken and held. If one occupies land up to a certain fence, because he believes that to be the line of his land, but not having any intention to claim up to the fence, if it should be beyond the line, the intent to claim title does not exist coincident with the possession, and the possession up to the fence is not, there”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lindsey v. Aldridge