Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 So. 2d 64 - Johnson v. Brewington

435 So. 2d 64 - Johnson v. Brewington’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2010

15 state decisions

701983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 390 So. 2d 616 - Kerlin v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., Inc. · 410 So. 2d 889 - Thomas v. Davis · Mardis v. Nichols · 414 So. 2d 60 - Gulledge v. Frosty Land Foods Intern., Inc. · Berry v. Guyton

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

  1. “"Because the application of the tacking principle is confusing under our present case law, we deem it appropriate to restate the principle and articulate the rationale for the rule. For the purpose of effecting title by adverse possession, where all the traditional elements are present, tacking of periods of possession by successive possessors is permitted against the coterminous owner seeking to defeat such title, unless there is a finding, supported by the evidence, that the claimant's predecessor in title did not intend to convey the disputed strip. We hold that this rule should apply even though the conveying instrument contains no legal description of the property in question, and irrespective of the period for which the property was possessed by the present claimant's predecessor in title. We perceive no logical or practical reason why the application of the privity of possession rule permitting tacking should be dependent upon whether the claimant's immediate grantor possessed the disputed property for more or less than the statutory period."”
    1 later decision 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.