83 Md. App. 541 - Miceli v. Foley’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Grace v. Koch (1998), Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States (1999)
2 federal appellate · 19 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 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · White v. California · MPC, Inc. v. Kenny · Sterling v. Local 438, Liberty Ass'n of Steam & Power Pipe Fitters & Helpers' Ass'n
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All the authorities agree that an entry, to have [the] effect [of interrupting the statutory period], must be an actual entry upon some part of the land within the period of limitations, and must evince that it is made with the clear and unequivocal intent to invade and challenge the right of the holder of the adverse possession and to retake possession.” ... “[T]he running of the statute is interrupted by the owner’s entry on the land, if, and only if, this is made openly and under claim of right, with a clearly indicated purpose of taking possession.” ... “A mere physical entry by the owner is not enough, for, in order to defeat another’s adverse possession, the owner’s entry must clearly indicate to the occupant that his possession is invalid and his right challenged. It must be open and notorious and bear on its face an unequivocal intention to take possession, and must be made under such circumstances that, by the use of reasonable diligence, the occupant may ascertain the right and claim of the entrant. The entry, it has been declared, must equal in dignity and character that required to initiate an adverse possession, that is, it cannot be accidental, casual, secret, or permissive.” “In all cases, however, the intent, as expressed, or evidenced by acts of ownership, is that which governs the effect of the entry. The mere act of going upon the land is not enough. The owner must assert his claim to the land or perform some act that would reinstate him in possession, bef”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“continually possessed in an actual, open, notorious, exclusive and hostile manner, under claim of title or ownership”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowie v. State
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.