Legal Opinion

Blickenstaff v. Bromley

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 21, 1966No. [No. 334, September Term, 1965.]PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPrescott, C. J.

This appeal involves a set of circumstances which illustrates why the practice of the legal profession and the administration of the law are interesting.

Although there are quite a number of named appellants, the only issue presented for determination is whether appellants Charles L. Blickenstaff and his wife have acquired title by adverse possession to a small parcel of land consisting of about 0.1 of an acre (marked on the plat below with a large X).

In 1956, the appellees, Walter Bromley and his wife, purchased a 200-acre farm in Pondsville area of Washington County. At that time, the farm…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. Fullard-LeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Lurman v. HubnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1892
  3. Goen v. SansburyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. Thistle v. Frostburg Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
  5. Tamburo v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1953

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. East Washington Railway Co. v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. Jenkins v. City of College ParkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
  4. Miceli v. FoleyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  5. Mauck v. WALTER BAILEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF LESTERCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API