75 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1867–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. Poseygreen2 sentences2016Porter, 592 S.W.2d at 849 . . 1984His possession must also give the owner “cause to know that an adverse claim of ownership is being made by another.” Porter v. Posey, 592 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Mo.App.1979). | 4 | 5 |
Higgerson v. Higgersongreen2 sentences2017Higgerson v. Higgerson, 494 S.W.2d 374, 379 (Mo. App. S.D. 1973). 1976Higgerson v. Higgerson, 494 S.W.2d 374, 379 (Mo.App.1973). | 2 | 2 |
Coates v. Coatesgreen2 sentences1994Coates v. Coates, 316 S.W.2d 875, 878 [2] (Mo.App.1958). 1993Id. at 878 [2]. | 2 | 2 |
Huter v. Birkgreen2 sentences1994In Huter v. Birk, 510 S.W.2d 177, 183 (Mo.1974), the court held: “We are of opinion that under modern conditions the better rule is that which prohibits the servient owner from erecting gates or bars across the road where the owner of the dominant estate has used said road uninterruptedly under an adverse claim of right for [the period of prescription], or more, without gates or bars.” In Massee v. Schiller, 243 Ark. 572 , 420 S.W.2d 839 (1967), discussed in and relied upon by the principal opinion, there was a dissent embraced by three judges. 1977Huter v. Birk, 510 S.W.2d 177, 183 [8] (Mo.1974). *204 There the court quoted with approval this language: “[Ujnder modern conditions the better rule is that which prohibits the ser-vient owner from erecting gates or bars across the road where the owner of the dominant estate has used said road uninterruptedly under an adverse claim of right for [the period of prescription], or more, without gates or bars.” 9 Thus falls prong (c). | 2 | 2 |
Bowles v. McKeongreen2 sentences2016“This requirement exists to ensure that the legal owner had cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another.” Id. 2014The requirement that the occupancy be “conspicuous, widely recognized, and commonly known” exists to make sure that “the legal owner had cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another.” Bowles v. McKeon, 217 S.W.3d 400, 405 (Mo.App.2007). | 1 | 3 |
Flowers v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2013The reason for this requirement is to “afford the owner reasonable notice, either actual or constructive, that an adverse claim of ownership is being made by another.” Flowers v. Roberts, 979 S.W.2d 465, 469-70 (Mo.App.1998). 2002This requirement is to “afford the owner reasonable notice, either actual or constructive, that an adverse claim of ownership is being made by another.” Flowers, 979 S.W.2d at 470 . | 1 | 3 |
Shelton v. Horrellgreen2 sentences1977Spore v. Ozark Land Co., 186 Mo. 656 , 85 S.W. 556 (1905); Shelton v. Horrell, 232 Mo. 358 , 134 S.W. 988, 990 (3, 4) (banc 1911); 74 C.J.S. 1914In Shelton v. Horrell, supra, the tax sale was not void but voidable, and defendant in the tax suit had notice of it; and in Toler v. Edwards, supra, the tax suit defendant had notice of the adverse claim and brought her action a considerable time later, having made no claim for about thirty years “during all which time” the land had been claimed by defendants, improvements had been put upon it, money expended in clearing it, and it had been “successively tilled and cultivated by the agents of the grantees in the chain of title running back to the sheriff’s deed; the records of the sheriff’s d | 1 | 2 |
Green v. Langegreen1 sentence2016Although the open and notorious requirement can be met by showing a respondent’s actual knowledge of the adverse claim, absent proof of actual knowledge, this requirement can also be satisfied by demonstrating that the claimant’s possession is “conspicuous, widely recognized, and commonly known.” Green v. Lange, 797 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Dumproff v. Driskillgreen1 sentence2014Dumproff v. Driskill, 376 S.W.3d 680, 690 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Kline v. Bourbon Woods, Inc.green1 sentence2014“The possession must be as notorious as the nature of the land will permit.” Kline v. Bourbon Woods, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Mo.App.1985) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Litchfield v. Booghergreen1 sentence2013An iron fence had been built across the end of the alley, but “the testimony shows that in so building the fence there was no intention of obstructing the alley, or of asserting an adverse claim against its use as such.” Id. at 304. | 1 | 1 |
Hamrick v. Herreragreen1 sentence2012Where the purchaser is charged with notice of an adverse claim, the purchaser is considered to have " ‘notice of such facts as would be disclosed by reasonable pursuit and proper inquiry.' ” White, 77 S.W.3d at 705 (quoting Hamrick v. Herrera, 744 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Blue Pool Farms, LLC v. Baslergreen1 sentence2011Leonard, 276 S.W.3d at 874 ; Blue Pool Farms v. Basler, 239 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Bank of West Orange v. Associates Discount Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gendler v. Sibley State Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wolff Shoe Co. v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wells v. Carpentergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eakins v. Sadlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oberle v. Moniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of South Greenfield v. Caglegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Twin Bridges Const. Co., Inc. v. Fernergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anson v. Tietzegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Speck v. Riggin
neutral
2 sentences1892“Notice is actual when the purchaser either knows of the existence of the adverse claim of title, or is conscious of having the means of knowledge although he may not use them.” Speck v. Riggin, 40 Mo. 405 ; Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 588 ; Eck v. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235 ; Leavitt v. La Force, 71 Mo. loc. cit. 356. 1892It is not necessary, however, that he should have had such knowledge to charge him with notice under the statute. ' 'Notice is actual when the purchaser either knows of the existence of the adverse claim or title, or is conscious of having the means of knowing, although he may not use them.” Speck v. Riggins, 40 Mo. 405 ; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304 ; Rhodes v. Outcalt, 48 Mo. 367 ; Eck v. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235 ; Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 581 ; Mason v. Black, 87 Mo. 330 . | 6 | 1871–1894 |
Teson v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences1998Teson v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d at 127 ; Szombathy v. Shell Oil Co., 676 S.W.2d at 19 . 1998Tesón v. Vasquez, 561 S.W.2d at 127 . | 3 | 1984–1998 |
Richmond v. Ashcraft
green
2 sentences1979In Richmond v. Ashcraft, 137 Mo.App. 191 , 117 S.W. 689 (1909) the court stated that one who knows of a claim but had an honest but erroneous opinion of his own title could not recover for improvements made with full knowledge of an adverse claim. 1979In Richmond v. Ashcraft, 137 Mo.App. 191 , 117 S.W. 689 (1909) the court stated that one who knows of a claim but had an honest but erroneous opinion of his own title could not recover for improvements made with full knowledge of an adverse claim. | 3 | 1910–1979 |
Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership
green
2 sentences2024"An owner who 'pays so little attention to what he owns that he neither sells it nor intends to put it to a productive use' forfeits his right to preserve undiminished title to the person who does put the resource to productive use." Id. at 966 (quoting James Gordley, Foundations of Private Law 144 (2006)). 6 2004)). "[T]hus, if the owner does not timely seek legal aid to dispossess one who 'enters into possession and sets up an adverse claim' to the land, 'the law assumes that the owner has acquiesced in the adverse claim.'" Wertz-Black, 524 S.W.3d at 74 (quoting Whittom, 851 S.W.2d at 509 ). 2017The “law presumes that every man knows the condition and status of his land”; thus, if the owner does not timely seek legal aid to dispossess one who “enters into possession and sets up an adverse claim” to the land, “the law assumes that the owner has acquiesced in the adverse claim.”' Id. | 2 | 2017–2024 |
Stuart A. Devore and Vandee Devore, Husband and Wife v. Lillian Vaughn
green
2 sentences2021In other words, the legal owner must have "had cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another." Id. (quoting DeVore, 504 S.W.3d at 185 ). 2021In other words, the legal owner must have "had cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another." Id. (quoting DeVore, 504 S.W.3d at 185 ). | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Martens v. White
green
2 sentences2016“The reason for this requirement is to give the owner cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another.” Id. 2012“The open and notorious element of adverse possession is satisfied by exercising visible acts of ownership on the disputed property.” Martens, 195 S.W.3d at 555 . “ ‘The reason for this requirement is to give the owner cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another.’ ” Id. (quoting Thomas v. B.K.S. | 2 | 2012–2016 |
Compton v. Cain
green
2 sentences2006“The reason for this requirement is to give the owner cause to know of the adverse claim of ownership by another.” Id. 2002Id. | 2 | 2002–2006 |
Brown v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences1942But under some statutes, the occupant may recover for improvements which he made in good faith prior to notice of the adverse claim or title. ’ ’ In support of this general rule appellants cite Brown v. Baldwin, 121 Mo. 106 ; Lee v. Bowman, 55 Mo. 400 ; Smith v. Mount, 149 Mo. App. 688 , 129 S. W. 722 ; Richmond v. Ashcraft, 137 Mo. App. 191 . 1910It must be notice of an adverse claim of title and the fact that there is a superior title in another party, and that that title appears of record, is not of itself a sufficient notice to defeat this action. [Marlowe v. Liter, 87 Mo. App. 584 ; Richmond v. Ashcraft, 137 Mo. App. 191 , 117 S. W. 689 ; Brown v. Baldwin, 121 Mo. 106 , l. c. 115, 25 S. W. 858 .] If we conclude that the plaintiff in this case is bound by the allegations of the answer filed in the ejectment suit in which he stated that he purchased the land from Charles Peters and Dr. C. | 2 | 1910–1942 |
Eck ex rel. Taylor v. Hatcher
green
2 sentences1892“Notice is actual when the purchaser either knows of the existence of the adverse claim of title, or is conscious of having the means of knowledge although he may not use them.” Speck v. Riggin, 40 Mo. 405 ; Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 588 ; Eck v. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235 ; Leavitt v. La Force, 71 Mo. loc. cit. 356. 1892It is not necessary, however, that he should have had such knowledge to charge him with notice under the statute. ' 'Notice is actual when the purchaser either knows of the existence of the adverse claim or title, or is conscious of having the means of knowing, although he may not use them.” Speck v. Riggins, 40 Mo. 405 ; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304 ; Rhodes v. Outcalt, 48 Mo. 367 ; Eck v. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235 ; Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 581 ; Mason v. Black, 87 Mo. 330 . | 2 | 1892–1892 |
Sensenderfer v. Kemp
green
2 sentences1892It is not necessary, however, that he should have had such knowledge to charge him with notice under the statute. ' 'Notice is actual when the purchaser either knows of the existence of the adverse claim or title, or is conscious of having the means of knowing, although he may not use them.” Speck v. Riggins, 40 Mo. 405 ; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304 ; Rhodes v. Outcalt, 48 Mo. 367 ; Eck v. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235 ; Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 581 ; Mason v. Black, 87 Mo. 330 . 1884But in this case it is useless to multiply -words» It is admitted by counsel that “in the main it is so much like that of Sensenderfer v. Kemp, 83 Mo. 581 , that that case decides this.” Upon the authority of that case and the authorities there cited, the judgment of tho circuit court is affirmed. | 2 | 1884–1892 |
Musick v. Barney
green
2 sentences1883Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458 . 1883See, also, Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 393 ; Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458; Meier v. Blume, ante, p. 179. | 2 | 1883–1883 |
Wertz-Black v. Guesa USA, LLC
green
1 sentence2024"An owner who 'pays so little attention to what he owns that he neither sells it nor intends to put it to a productive use' forfeits his right to preserve undiminished title to the person who does put the resource to productive use." Id. at 966 (quoting James Gordley, Foundations of Private Law 144 (2006)). 6 2004)). "[T]hus, if the owner does not timely seek legal aid to dispossess one who 'enters into possession and sets up an adverse claim' to the land, 'the law assumes that the owner has acquiesced in the adverse claim.'" Wertz-Black, 524 S.W.3d at 74 (quoting Whittom, 851 S.W.2d at 509 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sleepy Hollow Ranch LLC v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 497 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Briggs
green
1 sentence2021Kinder, 537 S.W.3d at 387 . 14 Substantial evidence established that the Hartmans' occupancy of the disputed tract was sufficiently "conspicuous, widely recognized, and commonly known" so as to constitute open and notorious possession. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Toombs v. Riley
green
2 sentences2014Likewise, in Toombs v. Riley, 591 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979), Plaintiffs Toombs sued Riley for an adverse claim of title and occupancy of a portion of their land, seeking quiet title, damages for trespass, and ejectment and damages. 2014Id. at 235 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
White v. Buntin
green
1 sentence2012Where the purchaser is charged with notice of an adverse claim, the purchaser is considered to have " ‘notice of such facts as would be disclosed by reasonable pursuit and proper inquiry.' ” White, 77 S.W.3d at 705 (quoting Hamrick v. Herrera, 744 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Leonard v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2011Leonard, 276 S.W.3d at 874 ; Blue Pool Farms v. Basler, 239 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Williams v. Frymire green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Thomas v. B.K.S. Development Corp. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Franck Bros., Inc. v. Rose green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Thomas v. Lloyd green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Szombathy v. Shell Oil Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Massee v. Schiller green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Safeco Title Insurance v. Moskopoulos green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Meinhardt v. Luaders green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Crane v. Loy green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| General American Life Insurance Co. v. Wiest green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Toalson v. Madison green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Walkup v. Evinger green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Spore v. Ozark Land Co. neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Trautz v. Lemp green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Puryear v. Clements green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Hill v. Miller green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Higdon v. Bell green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Rogerson v. Shepherd green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Bolton v. Murphy green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Fankboner v. Corder green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Ray v. Nanney green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Allen v. Morris green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| City Nat'l Bank of Paducah v. Ex. Bank Mayfield neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.