Blickenstaff v. Bromley
Court of Appeals of Maryland
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
- United States v. Fullard-LeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Lurman v. HubnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1892
- Goen v. SansburyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
- Thistle v. Frostburg Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
- Tamburo v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- East Washington Railway Co. v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
- Jenkins v. City of College ParkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Freed v. Cloverlea Citizens Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- Miceli v. FoleyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Mauck v. WALTER BAILEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF LESTERCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.