Deyrup v. Schmitt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that children’s ballgames, planting of small garden, running with dog, placement of boat trailer, and parking cars on disputed portion of lakefront property were not “obvious adverse use[s] of the disputed property”
• holding that children’s ballgames, planting a small garden, running with a dog, placing a boat trailer, and parking cars on disputed portion of lakefront property were not “obvious adverse use[s] of the disputed property”
• tacking permits an adverse possessor “to add his period of possession to that of a prior adverse possessor”
• “‘Tacking’ is that doctrine which permits an adverse possessor to add his period of possession to that of a prior adverse possessor in order to establish a continuous possession for the statutory period.”
• “Tacking is that doctrine which permits an adverse possessor to add his period of possession to that of a prior adverse possessor in order to establish a continuous possession for the statutory period.” (quotations omitted)
• “Tacking is that doctrine which permits an adverse possessor to add his period of possession to that of a prior adverse possessor in order to establish a continuous possession for the statutory period.” ( quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).