Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

no ejectment for highway/dedicated street

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 31 U.S. 431 - The President Recorder and Trustees of the City of Cincinnati v. The Lessee of Edward White · 1832Most cited · 213 citing opinions

This is a possessory action, and the plaintiff, to entitle himself to recover, must have the right of possession; and whatever takes away this right of possession, will deprive him of the remedy by ejectment... The purpose for which the action is brought, is not to try the mere abstract right to the soil, but to obtain actual possession; the very thing to which the plaintiff can have no exclusive or private right. This would be utterly inconsistent with the admitted public right. That right consists in the uninterrupted enjoyment of the possession. The two rights are therefore incompatible with each other, and cannot stand together.

How often courts cite the case defining “no ejectment for highway/dedicated street”

18301850190019502000202044

Court decisions citing the opinion that defined “no ejectment for highway/dedicated street” — 213 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining case as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.