85 Ill. 2d 74 - Joiner v. Janssen’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably 143 Ill. 2d 458 - Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison (1991), 171 Ill. App. 3d 428 - Rosenthal v. City of Crystal Lake (1988)
80 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 4 Ill. 2d 488 - Schwartz v. Piper · Illinois Central Railroad v. Houghton · White v. Harris · 22 Ill. 2d 232 - McLeod v. Lambdin · 20 Ill. 2d 589 - Cagle v. Valter
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Using and controlling property as owner is the ordinary mode of asserting claim of title, and, indeed, is the only proof of which a claim of title to a very large proportion of property is susceptible.’ [Citations.] *** Such improvements or acts of dominion over the land as will indicate to persons residing in the immediate neighborhood who has the exclusive management and control of the land are sufficient to constitute possession. [Citations.]” 85 Ill. 2d 74, 82 , 421 N.E.2d 170 , 174.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The proof must be such as to establish with reasonable certainty the location of the boundaries of the tract to which the five elements of adverse possession are applied and all of the elements must extend to the tract so claimed. While it is not necessary that the land should be enclosed by a fence, the boundaries must be susceptible of specific and definite location.’ ” 85 Ill. 2d 74, 83 , 421 N.E.2d 170, 175 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The essence of the doctrine of adverse possession is the holding of the land adversely to the true titleholder. ‘A party, claiming title by adverse possession, always claims in derogation of the right of the real owner. He admits that the legal title is in another. He rests his claim not upon a title in himself, as the true owner, but upon holding adversely to the true owner for the period prescribed by the Statute of Limitations.’ (Mercer v. Wayman (1956), 9 Ill. 2d 441, 445-46 ; White v. Harris (1903), 206 Ill. 584, 592 ; 3 Am. Jur. 2d Adverse Possession sec. 7, at 87 (1962).) To hold that because the possessor knows or should know that record title is in another precludes any possibility of the possessor’s title being adverse is the antithesis of the doctrine of adverse possession as it has existed in this State. (Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Houghton (1888), 126 Ill. 233 .)” Joiner v. Janssen (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 74, 80-81 , 421 N.E.2d 170, 173-74 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.