Flowers v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably City of Kansas City v. New York-Kansas Building Associates L.P. (2002), Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman Partnership (1999)
39 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 Murphy v. Carron · Teson v. Vasquez · Anson v. Tietze · Kitterman v. Simrall · Conduff v. Stone
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[e]xclusive” possession means that the claimant must hold the land for himself or herself only, and not for another. To satisfy this element an adverse possession claimant must show that he or she “wholly excluded” the owner from possession for the required period; but this does not mean that mere “sporadic use, temporary presence or permissive visits by others (including the title holder)” will negate this element and defeat a claim of adverse possession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lancaster v. Neff“without lapse, uninterrupted, for the entire statutory period.”
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.