418 So. 2d 862 - Beard v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 2007
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Livingston v. Livingston · Ratliff v. Ratliff · Hames v. Irwin · Markstein v. Schilleci · Williams v. Sinclair Refining Co.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"'The rule has long been established in this jurisdiction that the possession of one tenant in common is presumed to be the possession of all; and such possession does not become adverse to the cotenant until he is actually ousted or short of ouster, the adverse character of the possession of one is actually known to the other, or the possession of one is so open and notorious in its hostility and exclusiveness as to put the cotenant on notice of its adverse character. Foshee v. Foshee , 278 Ala. 205 , 177 So.2d 99 (1965); Barry v. Thomas , 273 Ala. 527 , 142 So.2d 918 (1962); Markstein v. Schilleci , 258 Ala. 68 , 61 So.2d 75 (1952); Hames v. Irwin , 253 Ala. 458 , 45 So.2d 281 (1949); Ratliff v. Ratliff , 234 Ala. 320 , 175 So. 259 (1937). " 'Before the possession of a cotenant may be regarded as adverse to his cotenant, he must repudiate the cotenant's interest in the property by act or declaration. Livingston v. Livingston , 210 Ala. 420 , 98 So. 281 (1923). This means that there must be some express denial of title and right to possession of the fellow cotenant brought home to him openly and unequivocally. Williams v. Sinclair Refining Co. , 39 N.M. 388 , 47 P.2d 910 (1935); 86 C.J.S. Tenancy in Common § 27. In Ratliff v. Ratliff , supra ( 234 Ala. at 322 , 323 , 175 So. at 261 ), this court stated the rule as follows: " ' "The possession of a tenant in common exercising the customary acts of ownership does not alone operate as a disseisin of cotenants; but there must be”
3 later decisions 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.