Smith v. Shiebeck’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Washington National Arena (1978), Condry v. Laurie (1945)
102 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 The Mayor Recorder Aldermen and Common Council of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Canal Company and William Turnbull · Cox v. Forrest · Harlan v. Town of Bel Air · Townsend, Grace & Co. v. Epstein · Mayor of Baltimore v. Frick
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" * * The material facts essential to the complainant’s right to obtain relief should be alleged, but a general statement of the facts is sufficient. It is not necessary to state minutely all the circumstances which may conduce to prove the general charge, as these circumstances are properly matters of evidence which need not be recited to enable them to be admitted as proof [citing cases]. Even though every particular circumstance is not stated, the bill will be held sufficient if it states the complaint with reasonable certainty, clearness and accuracy so as to apprise the defendant of the nature of the claim brought against him.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * It is a familiar principle that to establish a right of way by prescription it is necessary to prove an adverse, exclusive and un interrupted use of the way for twenty years. The term ‘adverse use’ means use without license or permission, for an adverse right of an easement cannot grow out of a mere permissive enjoyment. Where, however, a person has used a right of way for twenty years unexplained, it is fair to presume that the use has been under a claim of right, unless it appears to have been by permission. In other words, the use of a way whenever one sees fit over the land of another, without asking leave is an adverse use, and the burden is upon the owner of the land to show that the use of the way was by license or contract inconsistent with a claim of right. Cox v. Forrest, 60 Md. 74 ; Waters v. Snouffer, 88 Md. 391 , 41 A. 785 ; Hansel v. Collins, 180 Md. 209 , 23 A. 2d 686 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garrett v. Gray · Rogers v. Burnopp““* * * In Maryland no particular form or ceremony is necessary to dedicate land to public use. No deed is necessary to evidence a dedication, nor any grantee-in esse to take the title. Harlan v. Town of Bel Air, 178 Md. 260 , 13 A. 2d 370 . As dedication is purely a question of intention, any act of a landowner clearly manifesting such an intention is sufficient. honaconing, M. & F. Ry. Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 95 Md. 630, 634 , 53 A. 420 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.