405 Pa. Super. 385 - Wolfe v. Porter’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. “[w]hen preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer are filed, we must accept as true all the well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences deducible from those facts. Accepting these facts and inferences, we then determine whether the pleader has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and we will affirm the grant of a demurrer only if there is certainty that no recovery is possible. All doubts are resolved in favor of the pleader. Furthermore, by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, appellees have admitted the factual allegations of the complaint for purposes of the demurrer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 412 Pa. Super. 630 - Shaffer v. Procter & Gamble · 2000 Pa. Super. 406 - Reformed Church of the Ascension v. Theodore Hooven & Sons, Inc.

2. “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---- 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). 7 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, 146 Pa.Super. 143 , 22 A.2d 70 . 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 (1912).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baylor v. Soska

3. “Appellant argues that an intent to include the disputed tract can be inferred from the language of the deed. We disagree. A careful examination of the deed discloses no reference to the disputed tract or to any inchoate right thereto. ... In the absence of a conveyance of the grantor’s inchoate rights, we assume that appellant’s predecessors either occupied the disputed land permissively or that they abandoned every intention of holding adversely before the conveyance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baylor v. Soska