Baylor v. Soska’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[¡Interested parties have a right to discern from the record the state of the title of any parcel of land. If tacking were to be permitted because of vague, undefined “circumstances,” there could and most likely would be no way for one not a party to the conveyance to know this. But the law mandates that a person asserting a claim of adverse possession make this assertion openly and notoriously to all the world. There must be no secret that the adverse possessor is asserting a claim to the land in question. If the adverse possessor’s claim is to be passed on to a successor in title, therefore, there must be some objective indicia of record by which it can be discerned with some degree of certainty that a claim of title by adverse possession is being made and that the duration of this claim has been passed on to a successor in title.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kline v. Capots · Zeglin v. Gahagen

2. “must prove actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession of the land for twenty-one years ... However, under certain circumstances, the periods of possession of prior owners may be added on to the period of possession of the present owners [by] a process, called ‘tacking* ... but only where there is privity between [successive occupants]. 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.

3. “The only method by which an adverse possessor may convey the title asserted by adverse possession is to describe in the instrument of conveyance by means minimally acceptable for conveyancing of realty that which is intended to be conveyed. In this case, the predecessor in title did not meet this requirement so far as regards the disputed tract.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.