53 Ark. App. 242 - Moses v. Dautartas’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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled that, in order to establish tide by adverse possession, appellee had the burden of proving that she had been in possession of the property continuously for more than seven years and that her possession was visible, notorious, distinct, exclusive, hostile, and with intent to hold against the true owner. The proof required as to the extent of possession and dominion may vary according to the location and character of the land. It is ordinarily sufficient that the acts of ownership are of such a nature as one would exercise over her own property and would not exercise over that of another, and that the acts amount to such dominion over the land as to which it is reasonably adapted. Whether possession is adverse to the true owner is a question of fact. See Walker v. Hubbard, 31 Ark. App. 43 , 787 S.W.2d 251 (1990); Hicks v. Flanagan, 30 Ark. App. 53 , 782 S.W.2d 587 (1990).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dillard v. Pickler · 60 Ark. App. 257 - Fulkerson v. Van Buren

2. “The decisions, opinions, and findings of a court do not constitute a judgment or decree. They merely form the bases upon which the judgment or decree is subsequently to be rendered and are not conclusive unless incorporated in a judgment or a judgment be entered thereon. They are more in the nature of the verdict óf a jury and no more a judgment than such a verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Ark. App. 836 - T & S Machine Shop, Inc. v. KD Sales