Larue v. Kosich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 54 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . The burden is upon the party who claims title by prescription to clearly prove by competent evidence all the elements essential to such title. The user must have been adverse to the true owner, and hostile to his title. It must have been actual, continued, open, and under claim of right . . . . ” (emphasis ours) 66 Ariz. at 303 , 187 P.2d at 645 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Krencicki v. Petersen · England v. Ally Ong Hing

2. ““Where the claimant has shown an open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of the land of another for the period of time sufficient to acquire title by adverse possession, the use will be presumed to be under a claim of right, and not by license of the owner. In order to overcome this presumption, thereby saving his title from the incumbrance of an easement, the burden is upon the owner to show that the use was permissive. This rule is sustained by the great weight of authority.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harambasic v. Owens

3. “If any party who is allowed by silent permission to pass over the lands of another, nothing being said as to any right being claimed, after ... [the statutory period], without showing that he ever communicated such claim in any way to the owner, can thus gain title by prescription, it would be a blot upon the law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chaconas v. Meyers