Moore v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This ouster by one tenant in common against his cotenant may occur, but it takes something more than an appropriation of the rents without an accounting. The mere silent, sole occupation by one of the entire property, though he be claiming the whole estate, and appropriating the whole rents, without an accounting to or claim by the others, without notice to his cotenant that his possession is adverse, and unaccompanied by some act which can amount to an exclusion and ouster of the cotenant, cannot be construed into an adverse possession. This ouster and exclusion may be effected by taking possession and affording actual notice of a claim of sole ownership or other positive and unequivocal act that must by its nature put the other coten-ants on notice that they are excluded from the possession. A presumption of title in such cases may also arise, upon the same ground that a grant from the State is presumed, by an exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the land by one tenant in common for twenty or more years, claiming the same as his own, without any recognition of his co-tenants or claim upon their part. This is an inference of fact which may be deduced from the whole proof on the subject. This presumption arises independent of the statute of limitations. It may be rebutted by the infancy or other disability of the parties, their actual relationship, or other facts showing the possession was not adverse but by the indulgence, permission, or as tenant of the owner. Disabili”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hallmark v. Tidwell

2. “This doctrine of constructive notice by mere presumption of law, arising from the operation of the registry acts, is to be taken with certain qualifications. It is very different in its effect from actual notice: actual notice binds the conscience of the party; constructive notice, by mere operation of the registry acts, may. bind his title, but not his conscience. ... The object of registration is to give notice to creditors and subsequent purchasers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Seal

3. “These cases clearly come within the rule, “that where one of several cotenants conveys the joint estate by an instrument purporting to vest the fee to the entire properly in the grantee, and the latter enters, asserting open and exclusive ownership thereof, in severalty, the co-tenant not conveying is deemed to be ousted, and, on the termination of the statutory period, title by adverse possession becomes vested in the grantee.” 27 • A.L.B. 8, 10.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooke v. Smith