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.
5 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Huntergreen2 sentences2005See Wilson v. Hunter, 59 Ark. 626, 628 , 28 S.W. 419, 419 (1894) (“There must be an intention to claim title.”); Dickson v. Young, 79 Ark. 2005See Wilson v. Hunter, 59 Ark. 626, 628 , 28 S.W. 419, 419 (1894) (“There must be an intention to claim title.”); Dickson v. Young, 79 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dickson v. Young
green
2 sentences2005See Wilson v. Hunter, 59 Ark. 626, 628 , 28 S.W. 419, 419 (1894) (“There must be an intention to claim title.”); Dickson v. Young, 79 Ark. 2005See Wilson v. Hunter, 59 Ark. 626, 628 , 28 S.W. 419, 419 (1894) ("There must be an intention to claim title."); Dickson v. Young, 79 Ark.App. 241 , 85 S.W.3d 924 (2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Barclay v. Tussey
green
2 sentences1998Barclay v. Tussey, 259 Ark. at 241 . 1998Barclay v. Tussey, 259 Ark. at 241 , 532 S.W.2d 193 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Collins v. Bluff City Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1960In Collins v. Bluff City Lumber Co., 86 Ark. 202 , 110 S.W. 806 , this Court held that title to land could not be acquired by possession for the statutory period, unless the possession be adverse. 1960In Collins v. Bluff City Lumber Co., 86 Ark. 202 , 110 S.W. 806 , this Court held that title to land could not be acquired by possession for the statutory period, unless the possession be adverse. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
McFadden v. Stark
neutral
1 sentence1914Anderson v. Seamans, 49 Ark. 475 ; McFadden v. Stark, 58 Ark. 7 . (3) The contractor was a necessary party and should have been made codefendant with the owners, who knew no tiling about what amount of materials had been furnished, nor how much of the materials furnished had gone into the construction of the improvement. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Anderson v. Seamans
neutral
1 sentence1914Anderson v. Seamans, 49 Ark. 475 ; McFadden v. Stark, 58 Ark. 7 . (3) The contractor was a necessary party and should have been made codefendant with the owners, who knew no tiling about what amount of materials had been furnished, nor how much of the materials furnished had gone into the construction of the improvement. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Hamilton v. West
green
1 sentence1894If one of two adjacent owners inclose or build upon his neighbor’s land, “through mere inadvertence or ignorance of the location of the real line, or for purposes of convenience, and with no intention to claim such extended area,” as said by the court in Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 340 , “ but intending to claim adversely only to the real or true boundary line, wherever it might be, such possession would not be adverse or hostile to the true owner.” But it would be, if he inclosed, or built upon and held, the land under the belief and'" claim that it .was his own, even though the claim of ti | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Walbrunn v. Ballen
neutral
1 sentence1894If one of two adjacent owners inclose or build upon his neighbor’s land, “through mere inadvertence or ignorance of the location of the real line, or for purposes of convenience, and with no intention to claim such extended area,” as said by the court in Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 340 , “ but intending to claim adversely only to the real or true boundary line, wherever it might be, such possession would not be adverse or hostile to the true owner.” But it would be, if he inclosed, or built upon and held, the land under the belief and'" claim that it .was his own, even though the claim of ti | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Ricker v. Hibbard
green
1 sentence1894If one of two adjacent owners inclose or build upon his neighbor’s land, “through mere inadvertence or ignorance of the location of the real line, or for purposes of convenience, and with no intention to claim such extended area,” as said by the court in Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 340 , “ but intending to claim adversely only to the real or true boundary line, wherever it might be, such possession would not be adverse or hostile to the true owner.” But it would be, if he inclosed, or built upon and held, the land under the belief and'" claim that it .was his own, even though the claim of ti | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Ayers v. Reidel
green
1 sentence1894If one of two adjacent owners inclose or build upon his neighbor’s land, “through mere inadvertence or ignorance of the location of the real line, or for purposes of convenience, and with no intention to claim such extended area,” as said by the court in Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 340 , “ but intending to claim adversely only to the real or true boundary line, wherever it might be, such possession would not be adverse or hostile to the true owner.” But it would be, if he inclosed, or built upon and held, the land under the belief and'" claim that it .was his own, even though the claim of ti | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.