Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
McQueen v. Blackgreen2 sentences2024As this Court has explained, “[T]he evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession and there must be little doubt left in the mind of the trier of fact as to the proper resolution of the issue.” McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641 , 645 n 2; 425 NW2d 203 (1988) Additionally, “[t]he evidence offered in support of adverse possession must be strictly construed with every presumption being exercised in favor of the record owner of the land.” Rozmarek v Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 292 ; 351 NW2d 558 (1984) (cleaned up). -5- The plaintiff’s possession of the land must be hostile and “under cover 2024As this Court has explained, “[T]he evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession and there must be little doubt left in the mind of the trier of fact as to the proper resolution of the issue.” McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641 , 645 n 2; 425 NW2d 203 (1988) Additionally, “[t]he evidence offered in support of adverse possession must be strictly construed with every presumption being exercised in favor of the record owner of the land.” Rozmarek v Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 292 ; 351 NW2d 558 (1984) (cleaned up). -5- The plaintiff’s possession of the land must be hostile and “under cover | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walters v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2024To claim by adverse possession, one must show that the property owner of record has had a cause of action for recovery of the land for more than the statutory period. [Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439 ; 499 NW2d 363 (1993) (citation omitted).] The clear and cogent evidence standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). 2024To claim by adverse possession, one must show that the property owner of record has had a cause of action for recovery of the land for more than the statutory period. [Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439 ; 499 NW2d 363 (1993) (citation omitted).] The clear and cogent evidence standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). | 4 | 2017–2024 |
Rozmarek v. Plamondon
green
2 sentences2024As this Court has explained, “[T]he evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession and there must be little doubt left in the mind of the trier of fact as to the proper resolution of the issue.” McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641 , 645 n 2; 425 NW2d 203 (1988) Additionally, “[t]he evidence offered in support of adverse possession must be strictly construed with every presumption being exercised in favor of the record owner of the land.” Rozmarek v Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 292 ; 351 NW2d 558 (1984) (cleaned up). -5- The plaintiff’s possession of the land must be hostile and “under cover 2024As this Court has explained, “[T]he evidence must clearly establish the fact of possession and there must be little doubt left in the mind of the trier of fact as to the proper resolution of the issue.” McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641 , 645 n 2; 425 NW2d 203 (1988) Additionally, “[t]he evidence offered in support of adverse possession must be strictly construed with every presumption being exercised in favor of the record owner of the land.” Rozmarek v Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 292 ; 351 NW2d 558 (1984) (cleaned up). -5- The plaintiff’s possession of the land must be hostile and “under cover | 3 | 2023–2024 |
Kipka v. Fountain
green
2 sentences2024To claim by adverse possession, one must show that the property owner of record has had a cause of action for recovery of the land for more than the statutory period. [Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439 ; 499 NW2d 363 (1993) (citation omitted).] The clear and cogent evidence standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). 2024To claim by adverse possession, one must show that the property owner of record has had a cause of action for recovery of the land for more than the statutory period. [Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435, 439 ; 499 NW2d 363 (1993) (citation omitted).] The clear and cogent evidence standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Killips v. Mannisto
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Walters v. Snyder
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.