Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 WASH 202 - Schulenbarger v. Johnstone

Schulenbarger v. Johnstone’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
10
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2018

21 state decisions — followed in 10 states

5019111920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Pitzman v. Boyce · Healy Lumber Co. v. Morris · Scheller v. Pierce County · Watson v. County Commissioners · Wasmund v. Harm

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

  1. ““ . . . we see no more than the usual accommodation between neighbors that marked the settlement of the public domain. Until roads are lawfully established, as said by one of the witnesses, ‘they [meaning the public] must go somewhere,’ and by common consent the pioneer settling in front of another has usually been willing that his neighbor should continue his way over the land occupied by him. To charge the owner with acquiescense, or to credit the user with an adverse intent, would put a penalty upon generosity, and consequently, . . . destroy all neighborhood accommodation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘If permissive in its inception, then such permissive character being stamped on the use at the outset, will continue of the same nature, and no adverse user can arise until a distinct and positive assertion of a right hostile to the owner, and brought home to him, can transform a subordinate and friendly holding into one of an opposite nature, and exclusive and independent in its character.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.