37 N.C. App. 499 - Sipe v. Blankenship’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1994
8 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 Williams v. Robertson · Cornelison v. . Hammond · Newkirk v. Porter · Gibson v. Dudley · Price v. Whisnant
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the rule in this State that a grantee’s occupation of land beyond the boundary called for in his deed under the mistaken belief that it was covered by the description in his deed will not be considered to be adverse. Thus, where a grantee goes into possession of a tract of land conveyed and also takes possession of a contiguous tract under mistaken belief that the contiguous tract is also included within the description of his deed, no act on his part, however exclusive, open and notorious, will constitute adverse possession of the contiguous tract prior to the time he discovers that the disputed area was not covered by the description in this deed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walls v. Grohman · Walls v. Grohman“The plaintiff makes it clear that when he went into possession of the Broyhill tract of land he intended to claim only the land described in his deed from Broyhill and he thought his deed covered the disputed area. There was no occasion for any change in his belief prior to his discovery in 1921 that the land now in dispute was not covered by his deed. As a consequence, so long as he thought his deed covered the disputed area, his possession was not adverse but a claim of rightful ownership. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, no act of the plaintiff, however exclusive, open and notorious it may have been prior to the time he discovered the area now in dispute was not covered by the description in his deed, will be considered adverse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walls v. Grohman“there was sufficient evidence from which the district court could find and conclude that defendants exercised possession over the disputed area solely because they believed that it was in fact their land and that it was included in the description contained in their deed. Such possession may not be considered adverse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walls v. Grohman
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.