open and notorious requirement (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

open and notorious requirement in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Chaplin v. Sandersgreen
wash · 1984 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1995–2016
2 sentences

2016Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d at 863 (1984); Anderson v. Hudak, 80 Wn.

2016Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d at 863 (1984); Anderson v. Hudak, 80 Wn.

14

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Anderson v. Hudak green
washctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2016Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d at 863 (1984); Anderson v. Hudak, 80 Wn.

2016Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d at 863 (1984); Anderson v. Hudak, 80 Wn.

32006–2016
Harris v. Urell green
washctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2022“In other words, the claimant must show that the true owner knew, or should have known, that the [] occupancy constituted an ownership claim.” Harris, 133 Wn. App. at 141 .

2022The adverse possession claimant proves the open and notorious requirement if they can show either that “(1) the true owner had actual notice of the adverse use throughout the statutory period, or (2) the claimant used the land so that any reasonable person would assume that the claimant is the owner.” Harris, 133 Wn. App. at 141 .

12022–2022
Erickson v. Murlin green
wash · 1905
2 sentences

1947Attention is directed to Erickson v. Murlin, 39 Wash. 43 , 80 Pac. 853 , where the strip in question was 21 inches in width along the whole line of a lot 120 feet in depth.

1947Attention is directed to Erickson v. Murlin, 39 Wash. 43 , 80 Pac. 853 , where the strip in question was 21 inches in width along the whole line of a lot 120 feet in depth.

11947–1947

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.020 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

MO 8 (1985–2016) WA 7 (1947–2022) OR 6 (1980–2025) TX 5 (1949–2024) OH 3 (2007–2026) NY 3 (2001–2025) NH 2 (2009–2026) TN 2 (1985–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check