Warner v. Noble’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1996
11 state decisions
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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Morris v. Gilmer · Maslen v. Anderson · Kirkwood v. Hoxie · Horton v. Howard
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.
““The proof in this case shows that when the houses were built upon lots 10 and 11, there was no survey of the premises, that the carpenter went on the premises and built the houses on what he supposed to be the respective lots. There was no claim by either party that they owned anything except the lots mentioned and described in their respective deeds according to the recorded plat thereof. There was no claim and no intention to claim upon the part of either party anything except the lots and premises which they had acquired by deed and to assert title to the true line between the premises. “Where the possession is up to a fixed boundary under a mistake as to the true line and the intention of the parties is to hold only to the true line, such possession is not hostile and will not ripen into title, 2 C. J. S. pp. 519, 632; and where the element of hostility is absent, there can be no adverse title acquired. _ 2 C. J. S. p. 568. Nor is possession which is permissive adverse possession. 2 C. J. S. p. 624. The possession must be actual, visible, open,, notorious, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted for the statutory period, hostile, and under cover of claim of right. 2 C. J. ¡3. p. 520. ‘ ‘ The trial court held that though the parties may have been mistaken as to the true line, plaintiff took possession of the disputed'strip, erected a cottage, assumed such control and use of the premises as was consistent with the character of the property, used it for the purpose for which i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dubois v. Karazin“[j]urisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be given by consent.”
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.