Collins v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * plaintiff had the burden of proving every fact necessary to prove his adverse possession. Among these elements is that of exclusiveness. In the case of Howard v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 197 Okl. 269 , 169 P.2d 737 , this court said in the body of the opinion: ‘Adverse possession, in order to ripen into title, must be exclusive. “Exclusive possession” means that the disseizor must show an exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit. Two persons cannot hold one piece of property adversely to each other at the same time, and where two persons have entered upon land, he who has the better title will be deemed to be in possession thereof. It is therefore essential that the possession of one who claims adversely should establish as an ouster of the true owner because in the absence of ouster, the title draws to itself the continuous possession of the property. Possession not amounting to disseizin is insufficient. 1 Am.Jur. 875, 876. “ ‘Where the possession of land is mixed, the legal seisin is according to the legal title. Deputron v. Young, 134 U.S. 241 , 10 S.Ct. 539 , 33 L.Ed. 923 .' “The most that can be said for plaintiff’s proof is that the possession, if he had any, was mixed or scrambled. Under the facts and circumstances in this case it could not be classed as exclusive. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. Evans · AMOORPOUR v. KIRKHAM