370 Pa. Super. 584 - Wittig v. Carlacci’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably 439 Pa. Super. 156 - Plauchak v. Boling (1995), 407 Pa. Super. 213 - Glenn v. Shuey (1991)
33 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 241 Pa. Super. 150 - Inn Le'Daerda, Inc. v. Davis · Dimura v. Williams · 277 Pa. Super. 549 - Brodsky v. Philadelphia Athletic Club, Inc. · Miles v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. · 290 Pa. Super. 559 - Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburg
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Castronuovo v. Sordoni, 357 Pa.Super. 187 , 515 A.2d 927 (1986), a panel of this Court reviewed the applicable law as follows: The possession of successive occupants may be tacked, but only where there is privity between them. Masters v. Local Union No. 472, United Mine Workers, 146 Pa.Super. 143 , 22 A.2d 70 (1941). For our purposes, “privity” refers to a succession of relationship to the same thing, whether created by deed or other acts or by operation of law. Stark v. Lardin, 133 Pa.Super. 96 , 1 A.2d 784 (1938). But a deed does not of itself create privity between the grantor and the grantee as to land not described in the deed but occupied by the grantor in connection therewith, although the grantee enters into possession of the land not described and uses it in connection with that conveyed * * * The deed, in itself, creates no privity as to land outside its calls. Nor is privity created by the bare taking of possession of land previously occupied by the grantor. Gerhart v. Hilsenbeck, 164 Pa.Super. 85, 88 , 63 A.2d 124, 126 (1949) (quotations omitted). Our court has held that acceptance of a deed describing boundary lines confined the premises to the area within the boundaries, and that such a deed did not convey inchoate rights acquired by incompleted adverse possession. Masters, supra. Each predecessor must have claimed title to the property in dispute, and in transferring to his successors must have purported to include it. Shaffer v. Lauria, 50 Pa.Super. 135 (19”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, a grantee cannot tack his grantor’s possession of land when the grantor does not convey such land to him. The only recognized exception occurs where an intent to convey more land than that described may be inferred from the circumstances or the deed itself. Castronuovo v. Sordoni, supra, 357 Pa.Superior Ct. at 193 n. 7, 515 A.2d at 931 n. 7.”
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.