Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 Wash. App. 409 - Roy v. Cunningham

46 Wash. App. 409 - Roy v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 196 W. Va. 559 - Brown v. Gobble (1996), 88 Wash. App. 306 - Lilly v. Lynch (1997)

27 state decisions

1301986199020002010decided

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 65 Wash. 2d 157 - Calbom v. Knudtzon · 100 Wash. 2d 853 - Chaplin v. Sanders · 103 Wash. 2d 800 - Sea-Pac Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union 44 · Michelsen v. Gilbert · 75 Wash. 2d 143 - Arnold v. Melani

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

  1. “(1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted; (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act; and (3) injury resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate [such admission, statement, or act].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he Roys[, who claimed title by adverse possession,] did not deem a lawsuit necessary until [three years after threatening a lawsuit]. Bearing in mind the period of time during which a person may legally bring a lawsuit after a cause of action arises regarding real property, failure to sue immediately after an assertion of a possessory interest in land does not amount to a representation that a claim has been abandoned. Moreover, the Meyerses’ subsequent improvements and conveyances despite actual notice of the Roys’ claim were undertaken without the requisite “right to rely”. Estoppel was therefore not established.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Where there is privity between successive occupants holding continuously and adversely to the true title holder, the successive periods of occupation may be tacked to each other to compute the required 10-year period of adverse holding.”
    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.