Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 Wash. 2d 131 - Houplin v. Stoen

72 Wash. 2d 131 - Houplin v. Stoen’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2009

14 state decisions

6019671970198019902000decided

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 Pence v. Langdon · 11 Wash. 2d 572 - Tyree v. Gosa · 27 Wash. 2d 512 - Thomas v. Harlan · 48 Wash. 2d 710 - Skov v. MacKenzie-Richardson, Inc.

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

  1. “It is a rule long since established that, if adjoining property owners occupy their respective holdings to a certain line for a long period of time, they are precluded from claiming that the line is not the true one, the theory being that the recognition and acquiescence affords a conclusive presumption that the used line is the true boundary. Most courts have laid down the rule that the time required to elapse before a line is established, is the time necessary to secure property by adverse possession. [Citing cases.] In the absence of an agreement to the effect that a fence between the properties shall be taken as a true boundary line, mere acquiescence in its existence is not sufficient to establish a claim of title to a disputed strip of ground. . . . In all cases, it is necessary that acquiescence must consist in recognition of the fence as a boundary line, and not mere acquiescence in the existence of a fence as a barrier.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “`mere acquiescence in [the fence's] existence is not sufficient to establish a claim of title to a disputed strip of ground'”
    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.