Aman v. Gilley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Demarius Hughes Aman appeals the judgment of the trial court finding that Michael J. Gilley and Susan Helms Gilley own an easement across a portion of Aman's real property. We reverse and remand. "Aman sued the Gilleys, who are coterminous landowners on the southern boundary of Aman's real property, to quiet title to a 120-acre parcel of real property and to enjoin them from interfering with a fence erected by Aman and her husband. The Gilleys answered, claiming to have paid taxes on a strip of land 20 feet wide and 975 feet long purportedly located within the 120-acre parcel. The Gilleys counterclaimed for a determination of the boundary line between their property and Aman's property, and they claimed ownership of the strip of land by adverse possession for a period of 10 years. The case was tried before a judge without a jury. "During the trial, the parties stipulated that the 20 foot by 975 foot strip of land was a public dirt road. At trial, however, the parties disputed the ownership of an additional strip of land (hereinafter `the disputed property') approximately 20 feet wide and approximately 200 feet long located at the end of the dirt road; the Gilleys use the disputed property as a driveway. At trial, the Gilleys claimed to own the disputed property through adverse possession. "In their posttrial brief, for the first time, the Gilleys claimed to own an easement by prescription over the disputed property. In her posttrial brief, Aman argued to the trial court that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 So. 3d 242 - Ex Parte Gilley · 55 So. 3d 248 - Aman v. Gilley

2. “"Aman contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the Gilleys a prescriptive easement because the Gilleys did not allege that they had acquired an easement by prescription in their counterclaim and because Michael Gilley specifically testified at trial that the Gilleys were claiming ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession. "`At the outset, we note that Rule 54(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure gives the trial court the discretion to award any relief a party is entitled to, even if the party has not specifically requested such relief. The rule provides, in pertinent part: "`"Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." "`The same principle is enunciated by Rule 15(b), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] where it is stated: "`"When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings." "`We find that these provisions make clear the fact that the trial court is empowered with the discretion to award relief to a party, even when such relief is not specifically requested in the complaint. See Awad v. Awad, 54 Ala.App. 154 , 306 So.2d 21 (Ala.Civ. App.1975).' " Beason v. Beason, 571 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). Thus, it was within the trial c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 So. 3d 242 - Ex Parte Gilley · 55 So. 3d 248 - Aman v. Gilley

3. ““A permissive use of lands does not ripen into an adverse use until there has been a repudiation of the permissive use so as to afford the owner notice of an adverse claim. Cotton v. May, 293 Ala. 212 , 301 So.2d 168 (1974); Gonzalez v. Naman, 678 So.2d 1152 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). Furthermore, an easement by prescription ‘ “is not established merely by the use of the lands of another for a period of twenty years or more.” ’ Cotton v. May, 293 Ala. at 214-15 , 301 So.2d at 170 (quoting West v. West, 252 Ala. 296, 297-98 , 40 So.2d 873, 874 (1949)). Accord Carr v. Turner, 575 So.2d 1066, 1067-68 (Ala.1991); Fisher v. Higginbotham, 406 So.2d 888, 889 (Ala.1981); Ford v. Alabama By-Products Corp., 392 So.2d 217, 219 (Ala.1980); Belcher v. Belcher, 284 Ala. 254, 256 , 224 So.2d 613, 614 (1969); Loveman v. Lay, 271 Ala. 385, 392 , 124 So.2d 93, 98 (1960); Roberts v. Monroe, 261 Ala. 569, 577 , 75 So.2d 492, 499 (1954); and West v. West, 252 Ala. 296, 297-98 , 40 So.2d 873, 874 (1949). [[Image here]] “The Gilleys’ use of the disputed property was presumed to be permissive. Hollis v. Tomlinson, [ 585 So.2d 862 (Ala.1991) ]. The Gilleys did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that their use of the disputed property was permissive. The Gilleys presented only evidence that they had used the disputed property for 26 years as a driveway. However, as stated earlier, the mere use of the disputed property for 20 years or more does not establish an easement by prescription. Cotton ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 So. 3d 242 - Ex Parte Gilley