McCaughn v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 43 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The underlying principle on which, is founded the rule requiring that possession must be open and notorious before it can be considered adverse to the real owner is that such character of possession is presumptive notice to the true owner of such possession and adverse claim. But the rule does not apply in cases where the party against whom the adverse claim is asserted has actual knowledge of such adverse possession. A possession which is adverse and actually known to the true owner is equivalent to a possession which is open and notorious and adverse. Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 336 ( 19 S. W. 61 ); Clark v. Gilbert, 39 Conn. 94 ; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737 ; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 490 , 72 Am. Dec. 137 , supra. The doctrine is ■ouc^'cIy stated in this form: ‘If the owner h"" actual knowledge that the possession is adverse to his title, the occupancy need not be open, visible, and notorious. Notoriety is important only where the adverse character of the possession is to be brought home to the owner by a presumption.’ See 1 Cyc. p. 999, par. c, and cases cited. ’ ’”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hardy v. Lynch · Native Lumber Co. v. Elmer

2. “The true doctrine, and the one now generally recognized is 'That neither actual occupation, cultivation, or residence are necessary to constitute actual possession when the property is so situated as not to admit of any permanent useful improvement' . . . .; 47 "It is not necessary that the occupation should be such that a mere stranger passing the land would know that someone was asserting title to a dominion over it. It is not necessary that the land be cleared or fenced, or that any building be put upon it. 48 "The question is, Did the person claiming to hold adversely exercise towards the property the same character of control which he used towards property actually his, and which he would not have used over property which did not belong to him; 49 "Possession of land cannot be more than the exercise of dominion over it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. George T. Houston, III and Ruth H. Jarvis Baker v. United States Gypsum Company, a Corporation

3. “Did the person claiming to hold adversely exercise towards the property the same character of control which he used toward property actually his, and which he would not have used over property which did not belong to him?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Houston III v. United States Gypsum Company