Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 Pa. Super. 4 - Flickinger v. Huston

291 Pa. Super. 4 - Flickinger v. Huston’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wenzel v. Morris Distributing Co. · Parks v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. · 241 Pa. Super. 150 - Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis · Commonwealth v. National Federation of the Blind · Dimura v. Williams

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

  1. ““It is well settled that he who asserts title by adverse possession must prove it affirmatively.” Robin v. Brown, 308 Pa. 123, 129 , 162 A. 161, 162 (1932). “[0]ne who claims title by adverse possession must prove that he had actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years . . . Each of these elements must exist, otherwise the possession will not confer title.” Conneaut Lake Park, Inc. v. Klingensmith, 362 Pa. 592, 594-95 , 66 A.2d 828 , 829 (1949) (citations omitted), See also Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp., 289 Pa.Super. 344 , 433 A.2d 483 (1981); Smith v. Peterman, 263 Pa.Super. 155 , 397 A.2d 793 (1978); Inn Le’Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa.Super. 150 , 360 A.2d 209 (1976). “An adverse possessor must intend to hold the land for himself, and that intention must be made manifest by his acts ... He must keep his flag flying and present a hostile front to all adverse pretensions.” Smith v. Peterman, supra, 263 Pa.Super. at 161 , 397 A.2d at 796 (quotations and citations omitted). In Inn Le’Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, supra, we noted that “[a] sporadic use of land, by one without title to it, will not operate to give him a title, no matter how often repeated ... It is true that residence is not necessary to make an adverse possession within the statute of limitation; the possession may be adverse by enclosing and cultivating the land . . . but nothing short of an actual possession, permanently contin”
    5 later decisions 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.