Nedry v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Normally, one who realizes that another has legal title to property will not claim the property as his own. Nevertheless, knowledge of an outstanding interest in the property does not preclude the possessor from exercising the claim of right required for adverse possession. In Bessler v. Powder River Dold Dredg. Co., 95 Or. 271 , 185 P. 753 (1919), reh. denied 187 P. 621 (1920), this court stated the rule as follows: "`* * * The terms "claim of right," "claim of title" and "claim of ownership" when used in the books to express adverse intent mean nothing more than the intention of the disseisor to appropriate and use the land as his own to the exclusion of all others, irrespective of any semblance or shadow of actual title or right.' In other words, `claim of right' simply means that the possession is not permissive and that the party in possession has not led the true owner to believe that the possessor recognizes the true owner's rights. 3 American Law of Property 776, § 15.4 (Casner ed. 1974); 4 Tiffany, Real Property, § 1142 (3d ed. 1975); see also Norgard et al. v. Busher et ux., 220 Or. 297, 301 , 349 P.2d 490, 493 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1161 (1960). Cf., Smith et al. v. Tremaine et ux., supra (recognition of legal title in cotenants); Sertic v. Roberts, 171 Or. 121 , 136 P.2d 248 (1943) (acknowledgement of title in lessor); Oregon City v. Or. & Cal. R. Co., 44 Or. 165 , 74 P. 924 (1904) (request that the possessor be allowed to make certain use of the property). When it appear”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 Or. App. 23 - Garrett v. Lundgren