Hostile Possession

20 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Horton v. Smith-Richardson Inv. Co.
  81 Fla. 255· Fla.· 1921-03-01 ·cited 64×
  In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the defendant corporation, holding that the defendant failed to establish title by adverse possession. The plaintiff held a federal patent from 1844 to the disputed land, and the court found that the defe
• Ida v. Carr and her husband
  73 Fla. 233· Fla.· 1917-02-02 ·cited 48×
  Theodore Lesley sought to quiet title to a ten-acre tract in Hillsborough County, claiming he had acquired it by adverse possession against the appellants (the Morgan daughters and their spouses). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lesley's possession was that of a
• Meyer v. Neil F. LAW, Jr.
  287 So. 2d 37· Fla.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal's decision granting respondents title to a portion of petitioners' land through adverse possession. The court held that adverse possession requires either color of title with tax payments or seven years of actual pos
• Lily Theo Moore v. Musa
  198 So. 2d 843· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-05-09 ·cited 23×
  Plaintiff Moore appealed from a final decree dismissing her quiet title action against defendants who claimed overlapping property created by platting errors in 1916 and 1923. The court reversed the dismissal as to defendant Liles, holding that Moore presented sufficient evidence
• Porter v. Lorene Inv. Co.
  297 So. 2d 622· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  Porter appeals a judgment quieting title to 750 acres in Putnam County, Florida, in Lorene Investment Company based on adverse possession without color of title. The court affirmed, holding that Lorene's predecessors obtained title through adverse possession prior to 1939 when th
• Douglass v. Aldridge
  90 Fla. 51· Fla.· 1925-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the appellee had not sufficiently proven adverse possession to claim title to the disputed land. The court emphasized the strict requirements for establishing adverse possession against a legal titleholder.
• Birtley v. Fernandez Co.
  392 So. 2d 291· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-10 ·cited 7×
  The Birtleys appealed a judgment denying their claim to a triangular parcel of property based on adverse possession. The appellate court reversed, finding clear and convincing evidence that the previous owners (the Dooleys) adversely possessed the southern portion of the disputed
• Elvin Brown v. Floyd
  202 So. 2d 215· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-08-03 ·cited 6×
  Elvin Brown appealed from a partition decree affecting a 200-acre estate inherited from his deceased father. Brown claimed ownership of 80 acres based on a 1934 deed from his mother and asserted title through adverse possession and operation of Florida's statutes of limitations.
• Polk v. Kelley
  184 So. 2d 494· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim for ejectment, affirming the trial court's judgment that title vested in the defendants through adverse possession.
• Drawdy Inv. Co. v. Leonard
  158 Fla. 444· Fla.· 1947-01-31 ·cited 6×
  Drawdy Investment Company appealed a judgment of ejectment dismissing its claim to property in Brevard County based on adverse possession. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts establishing adverse possession
• United States v. Tobias
  899 F.2d 1375· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict that the Johnsons failed to establish title by adverse possession, and thus the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v.
• Revels v. Sico, Inc.
  468 So. 2d 481· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
• Christ Church Pentecostal v. Richterberg
  334 F.2d 869· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff acquired title to the land through adverse possession for the statutory period, based on his and his predecessor's continuous possession and claim of right.
• Delany v. Padgett
  193 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1952-01-18 ·cited 4×
  A directed verdict for plaintiffs was proper because the defendant failed to establish a claim of title by adverse possession due to insufficient evidence of a hostile, open, and unequivocal claim, and any errors in a prior partition decree were not for the defendant to challenge
• Anderson v. Anderson-Tully Co.
  196 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1952-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish title by adverse possession and that the appellee's title to the disputed land was valid.
• Superior Oil Co. v. Harsh
  126 F.2d 572· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish title through adverse possession or presumption of an ancient grant, thus upholding the plaintiff's lease.
• Medine v. Wash. Mut.
  958 F. Supp. 2d 738· S.D. Fla.· 1998-11-10
  The court held that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), finding common questions of law and fact predominated.
• Lonzie Altman v. Champion Int'l Corp.
  611 So. 2d 8· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-16
  The concurring judge expressed doubts about the retroactive application of statutory amendments to workers' compensation cases where injuries occurred before the amendments' effective dates, despite concurring with the majority's decision to defer ruling on the constitutionality
• Houston v. United States Gypsum Co.
  652 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03
  The court held that the Houstons acquired title to the accretion property by adverse possession, satisfying the elements of Mississippi law, including actual possession of wild land and actual notice to the record owner.
• Jenkins v. Peters
  288 F.2d 401· D.C. Cir.· 1961-03-09
  The court held that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession and that the plaintiffs were barred by laches from asserting their claim.