Boundary Disputes in Washington
Ellis, James R.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by6
- 1995Levien v. Fiala Wash. Ct. App.
- 1984Piotrowski v. Parks Wash. Ct. App.
- 1978Fralick v. Clark County Wash. Ct. App.
- 1967Houplin v. Stoen Wash.
- 1967Lamm v. McTighe Wash.
- 1954Martin v. Hobbs Wash.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Quarrels over the physical edges of land ownership still appear on court calendars with disturbing frequency, displaying their peculiar bitterness beyond all value involved. A major factor swelling this litigation has been confusion over the various legal doctrines available in these disputes. Boundary line problems are often capable of treatment on several similar grounds and occasionally present contradictory equities, but they need not be a legal quagmire. This comment will attempt to analyze certain of the formulae currently applied to boundary disputes in Washington with particular reference to the doctrines of Acquiescence and Recognition, Oral Agreement, and Estoppel in Pais.
It is the writer's opinion that recent definitive decisions by our court have placed these rules on a new plane of clarity.