107 Ind. App. 347 - Landers v. Evers’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably Guy v. SCHULDT (1956), Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc (1990)
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Jasper Furniture Co. · Jackson v. Jackson · State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Jackson · Proctor v. Wells Bros. Co. of New York · Short v. Estate of Jacobus
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the doctrine of equitable estop-pel may in a proper case be invoked to prevent a defendant from relying upon the statute of limitations, the facts here do not justify the application of the doctrine. The misrepresentation or fraud must be of such character as to prevent inquiry or to elude investigation or to mislead and hinder the party who has the cause of action from obtaining the necessary information by the use of ordinary diligence, and the actions relied upon must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent. Jackson v. Jackson (1898), 149 Ind. 238 , 47 N.E. 963 ; State, ex rel v. Jackson (1913), 52 Ind.App. 254 , 100 N.E. 479 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Jasper Furniture Co. (1917), 186 Ind. 566 , 117 N.E. 258 . “Consistent with the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, appellant is charged with whatever knowledge she could have acquired in the exercise of ordinary diligence. She knew of her cause of action and, as far as we are apprised by the facts alleged, was in possession of the means to ascertain the proper person against whom to bring her action, if ordinary diligence had. been exercised. See Proctor v. Wells Bros. Co. of N.Y. (1913), 181 Ill.App. 468 ; Short v. Estate of Jacobus (1918), 212 Ill.App. 77 ; Staples v. Zoph (1935), 9 Cal.App.2d 369 , 49 Pac.2d 1131 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barnd v. Borst““If any person liable to an action shall conceal the fact from the knowledge of the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within the period of limitation after the discovery of the cause of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guy v. SCHULDT
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.