373 So. 2d 220 - Fruge v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““When a party proves acquisitive prescription, the boundary shall be fixed according to limits established by prescription rather than titles. If a party and his ancestors in title possessed for thirty years without interruption, within visible bounds, more land than their title called for, the boundary shall be fixed along these bounds.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morrison Grain Co. v. Charrier · 667 So. 2d 581 - Fallin v. Pesnell

2. ““Where there is a visible boundary which has been in existence for 30 years or more, and the defendant in a boundary action and his predecessors in title have in addition to the land described in the title, actually possessed land extending to that visible boundary, a plea prescription of thirty years should be sustained. It is our view that, for the rule to be applicable, two conditions must concur: First, there must be a visible boundary, artificial or otherwise; Second, there must be actual uninterrupted possession either in person or through ancestors in title, for thirty years or more, of the land extending beyond that described in the title and embraced within the visible bounds.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Baughman · 405 So. 2d 887 - Speight v. Dowden

3. “"Under LSA-C.C. art. 3499, the possession of the predecessors in title cannot be added to that of the present possessor, unless the title of the present possessor includes the property in dispute, else there is no privity of estate such as is necessary to make up the thirty years adverse possession `as owner'. Stutson v. McGee, 241 La. 646 , 130 So.2d 403 ; Comment, `Tacking of Possession for Acquisitive Prescription', 8 La.L.Rev. 105 (1947). On the other hand, under LSA-C.C. Art. 852, the tacking of successive possessions up to the established visible bound between two estates is permitted, whether or not the land in dispute is included within the title description of the party pleading prescriptive title under this article. Opdenwyer v. Brown, 155 La. 617 , 99 So. 482 ; Mills v. Butler, La.App., 1 Cir., 131 So.2d 262 ; Henly v. Kask, La.App. Orl., 11 So.2d 230 . See also Chaney, Prescription under Article 852, 13 La.L.Rev. 582 (1953), and Baudin v. Charrier, La. App., 3 Cir., 137 So.2d 440 . This holding was again followed in a petitory action considered by this court in Dubois v. Richard, 223 So.2d 198 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1969) . This position regarding tacking was recently affirmed by this court in a boundary action applying new Article 794 of the Civil Code. Leblanc v. Laborde, supra. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that under either old Civil Code Article 852 or new Civil Code Article 794, a possessor without good faith may tack on to his own possession that of his anc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 390 So. 2d 543 - McPherson v. Roy