Marja Corp. v. Allain’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2014
10 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 Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation · Calthorpe v. Abrahamson · Emerson v. Maine Rural Missions Ass'n · Taylor v. Hanson · Borneman v. Milliken
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [T]he elements that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence in order to establish a boundary by acquiescence ... are: 1) possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like; 2) actual or constructive notice to the adjoining landowner of the possession; 3) conduct by the adjoining landowner from which recognition and acquiescence not induced by fraud or mistake may be fairly inferred; 4) acquiescence for a long period of years such that the policy behind the doctrine of acquiescence is well served by recognizing the boundary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“not changed except in minor detail for approximately 20 years.”). 4 . Because we conclude that, as a matter of law, the first element of the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence has not been met, we need not discuss whether the other three elements have been proven. In particular, we decline to decide whether the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crosby v. Baizley“The party claiming title by acquiescence bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence_ Thus, we review the record to determine whether the [fact finder] reasonably could have been persuaded that the elements of title by acquiescence were established to a high degree of probability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crosby v. Baizley
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.