Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 MINN 500 - Swan v. Munch

Swan v. Munch’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
9
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1998

22 state decisions

5018961900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Hesperia Land & Water Co. v. Rogers · Dean v. Goddard · Carmody v. Mulrooney · Cornwell Manufacturing Co. v. Swift · Village of Glencoe v. Wadsworth

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

  1. ““A wrongful entry upon land, with continued possession, without any pretense of paper title, but under a claim of right inconsistent with the title of the true owner, and the exercise of acts of possession hostile to his rights in the land, may ripen into title by prescription. Village of Glencoe v. Wadsworth, 48 Minn. 402 , 51 N. W. 377 . Such use or adverse possession must be enjoyed by actual entry, and under such circumstances as will indicate that it is claimed as a matter of right. The true owner’s rights must be invaded by such hostile acts as would constitute grounds for action against the adverse claimant or intruder, and under such circumstances as to make the possession appear to be for the benefit of the claimant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * There was no trick or artifice on the part of the defendant, but an open and notorious taking possession of the premises by the defendant for her use and needs, and whereby the public were also benefited. These acts were notice to the owners that defendant was occupying the premises under a claim of right.”
    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.