Brown v. Stover’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. ““Now on this 22nd day of August, 1978, the Court having heard the evidence heretofore on the 28th day of June, 1978, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises, finds that the boundary line between Lots Ten (10) and Eleven (11), Block Six (6), Hunter, Phillips, McCoy and Tanner Addition to the City of New Madrid, New Madrid County, Missouri, be described as follows: Begin at a railroad spike over an old stone at the intersection of Crisler and Davis Streets, thence S89°38'E 800.0 feet along the center-line of Davis Street; thence S0°22'W 30.0 feet to the NE corner of Lot 10 of Block 6 of Hunter-Phillips-McCoy-Tanner Addition to New Madrid, Missouri and the point of beginning to describe the east line of Lot 10; thence continue S0°22'W 200.0 feet to the SE corner of said Lot 10 and there terminating. Said boundary line is designated by a survey made by Charles H. Ice, county surveyor, New Madrid County, Missouri on August 5, 1977, and recorded in Plat Book No. 7, Page 16, New Madrid County Recorder’s Office, which survey indicates the boundary line of Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10), Block Six (6), Hunter, Phillips, McCoy and Tanner Addition to the City of New Madrid, New Madrid County, Missouri, designated as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘B’. The Court further finds that the possession alleged in Defendants’ Counterclaim did not constitute adverse possession in that it was not open, exclusive, hostile, continuous and adverse for a period of ten (10) consecutive years and therefore ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Stover