Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 12/30/1983

Reed v. Wolyniec

Citations

471 A.2d 80
323 Pa. Super. 550
1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4621

How courts have described this case

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

determining that maintaining the lawn, planting flowers and shrubs, erecting a bird house, and using the land for recreational purposes for more than twenty-one years was sufficient to establish adverse possession claim
single twenty-four hour attempt by record owner to interrupt claimant’s possession did not destroy continuity of adverse possession
in explaining continuity element of doctrine of adverse possession, our Supreme Court has noted that “[possession of land is dominion over the land; it is not equivalent to occupancy”
attempt to interrupt adverse possession is only valid where it results in actual interruption
possession must be demonstrated to the general exclusion of others

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wieand, Cirillo, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.