Douglass v. Rowland

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that boundary by agreement, boundary by estoppel, and boundary by acquiescence are distinct doctrines, but declining to set forth the elements of boundary by estoppel
• explaining that boundary by agreement, boundary by estoppel, and boundary by acquiescence are distinct doctrines, but declining to set forth the elements of boundary by estoppel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 2007-04-27· cited 125×
• Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. McKinney
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 1992-09-04· cited 74×
• Bahr v. Imus
  Utah Supreme Court· 2011-04-01· cited 66×
• Campbell County Board of Education v. Brownlee-Kesterson, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 1984-03-08· cited 45×
• Sander v. Wright
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1986-10-22· cited 23×
• Energy Saving Products, Inc. v. Carney
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 1987-07-10· cited 16×
• Matus v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2003-04-07· cited 5×
• Gibson v. International Harvester Co.
  W.D. Tennessee· 1983-02-07· cited 4×
• First American Title Insurance v. Cumberland County Bank
  M.D. Tennessee· 2009-04-20· cited 4×
• Robert Keenan, Sr. v. Barry C. Fodor
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2012-07-30
• Joy C. Lindsey v. Walgreen Company
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2010-11-18
• State of Tennessee v. Phyllis McCrary
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2006-07-06
• Jose & Gioconda Matus v. Nashville General Hospital
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2003-03-19
• Billy Conatser v. L.D. (Joe) Ball
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2001-08-03