Winn v. Abeles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Possession alone is not sufficient to confer title. The holding must be hostile and adverse as against the true owner. There must, in addition to actual possession, be an intention of the party in possession to claim the land as his own. The occupancy of Abeles was not taken under color or claim of title ; nor was there any purpose to oust or dispossess Oolyer. The undisputed facts show that Abeles had no knowledge that his building extended beyond the boundary line of his lot until about the time that this controversy arose. He supposed his building rested entirely upon lot 9, and made no claim to any portion of the adjoining lot, and he is here now asserting that he does not own or claim the narrow strip of lot 10 upon which his wall had inadvertently been placed. Colyer was equally ignorant that the building of Abeles extended beyond the dividing line of the lots. No survey had been made, and it does not appear that there was any agreement that the line to which the wall extended should be taken as the true line. It will thus be seen that there was no adverse possession. One of the essential requisites to obtaining title through the statute of limitations was wanting, viz., the intention of Abeles to claim that land exclusively and as his own. Mere occupation by inadvertence or mistake, without any intention to claim title, may not be a disseizin, as where a fence is erroneously erected not on the dividing line.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zimmerman v. Ginther

2. ““. . . Abeles was entitled to the lateral support of the soil of the adjoining lot, but this right did not extend to the support of the buildings which he might have placed on his lot. The right extends only to the soil, and does not include anything placed thereon which sensibly increases the pressure. . . (p. 90.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanders v. State Highway Commission