Martin v. Lopes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘When owners of adjoining lands have acquiesced for a considerable time, at least equal to the period prescribed by the statute of limitations, in the location of a division line between their lands, although it may not be the true line according to the calls of their deeds, they are thereafter precluded from saying it is not the true line.’ {Martin v. Lopes, 28 Cal.2d 618, 622 [ 170 P.2d 881 ], citing Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 619, 627 .) Further, in Martin v. Lopes, supra, the statement is made that in order to invoke the doctrine of agreed boundaries all that need be shown is lack of knowledge by both parties where the fence line should be drawn.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Link v. Cole Investment Co. · 167 Cal. App. 2d 168 - Ball v. Harder

2. ““ ‘When such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary so described, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements.’ And again, to this effect: ‘The line so agreed on becomes in legal effect the true line, the agreement as to the line may be in parol and it does not operate to convey title to the land which may lie between the agreed line and the true line, but it fixes the line itself and the description carries title up to the agreed line regardless of its accuracy; . . . .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Cal. App. 2d 98 - Garrett v. Cook

3. ““ (1) If the parties, or one of them, knows that the agreed line is not the true line, there is no uncertainty, and the agreement is void. (2) If neither party knows where the true line is, the essential element of uncertainty is present and the agreement locating the boundary is binding, even though the parties mistakenly believe they have placed it on the true line and do not intend to claim except in accordance with the true line. Hence the boundary was held to have been settled where the parties jointly employed a surveyor and assisted him in locating the line, and thereafter treated that line as the boundary.” (Citing 11 Stan.L.Rev. 725.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 Cal. App. 2d 484 - Kirkegaard v. McLain