Talbot v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1937
7 state decisions
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 Swift v. Mulkey · Altschul v. O'Neill · Ryhiner v. Frank · Moore v. Willamette Transportation & Locks Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There are five essential elements necessary to constitute an effective adverse possession: First, the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; second, it must be actual; third, it must be open and notorious; fourth, it must be exclusive; and, fifth, it must be continuous. If any of these constituents is wanting, the possession will not affect a bar of the Legal title.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rasmussen v. Winters““No limitation is expressly provided by our Code against the- time within which a sheriff may execute a deed to the purchaser at a foreclosure sale.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Webster v. Rogers
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.