13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Kritesgreen2 sentences2001Id., citing Smith v. Krite (1950), 90 Ohio App. 38 , 43 , 102 N.E.2d 903 ." Id . at *2. 2001Id., citing Smith v. Krite (1950), 90 Ohio App. 38 , 43 , 102 N.E.2d 903 ." Id . at *2. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vanasdal v. Brinker
green
2 sentences2004Actual notice of adverse possession on the part of the title owner is not required since "[t]he owner is charged with knowledge of adverse use when one enters into open and notorious possession of the land under a claim of right." Vanasdal v. Brinker (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 298 , 299 , 500 N.E.2d 876 . {¶ 19} In the case sub judice, the trial court, in its December 23, 2003, Judgment Entry, specifically found that appellants' use of the disputed property was "insufficient to establish adverse possession." Appellant Eric Cromwell, in his deposition, 1 when asked what uses he had made of the 6' x 2004Actual notice of adverse possession on the part of the title owner is not required since "[t]he owner is charged with knowledge of adverse use when one enters into open and notorious possession of the land under a claim of right." Vanasdal v. Brinker (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 298 , 299 , 500 N.E.2d 876 . {¶ 19} In the case sub judice, the trial court, in its December 23, 2003, Judgment Entry, specifically found that appellants' use of the disputed property was "insufficient to establish adverse possession." Appellant Eric Cromwell, in his deposition, 1 when asked what uses he had made of the 6' x | 7 | 1993–2012 |
Montieth v. Twin Falls United Methodist Church, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Instead, "[t]he owner is charged with knowledge of adverse use when one enters into open and notorious possession of the land under a claim of right." Id. {¶ 50} In the case at bar, no genuine issues of material fact remain regarding Ditmyer's adverse possession claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rosenstihl v. Cherry
green
2 sentences2004Rosenstihl v. Cherry (1926), 114 Ohio St. 401 , 413 . {¶ 21} Furthermore, actual notice of adverse possession on the part of the title owner is not required since "the owner is charged with knowledge of adverse use when one enters into open and notorious possession of the land under a claim of right." Id. 2004Rosenstihl v. Cherry (1926), 114 Ohio St. 401 , 413 . {¶ 21} Furthermore, actual notice of adverse possession on the part of the title owner is not required since "the owner is charged with knowledge of adverse use when one enters into open and notorious possession of the land under a claim of right." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Gammon
green
1 sentence1961R., 566; Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Gannen, 254 S. W., 296 , 29 A. L. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co.
green
1 sentence1961Hence, since the law of Texas provides that mineral rights are an interest in realty, which may be severed from the remainder of the land by an exception or reservation in a deed, Stevens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 254 S. W., 290 , 29 A. L. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.