McGrath v. Eichoff’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 1998 · most notably Seal v. Banes (1934), Woodrow v. Ewing (1953)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 Coats v. Riley · Johnston v. City of Albuquerque · Farmers Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City v. Gillis · Crump v. Lanham · Morgan v. McGee
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * The law does not attempt to list all of the acts of dominion which may constitute such possession, so that what constitutes adverse possession, like the question of what constitutes negligence, often depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, as measured by the judgment of reasonable men. It has been said that such a determination in a given case must largely depend upon `the situation of the parties, the size and extent of the land, and the purpose for which it is adapted.'"”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Norman v. Smedley · Cox v. Kelley““The failure of a former owner of land sold for taxes suing to quiet title as against one claiming title under the tax deed, to tender the taxes, interest, penalties and costs assessed against the land, as required by secs. 12761 and 12763, O. S. 1931, 68 Okla. St. Ann. §§453, 455, is not raised by motion for judgment on the pleadings that does not specifically call attention to the failure to make tender. Unless such failure to make tender is specifically raised in the trial court, it will be deemed waived. However, payment of such sums will be required as a prerequisite to the entry of judgment canceling the tax deed by reason of the provisions of sec. 12668, O.S. 1931, 68 Okla. St. Ann. §360, when the question is called to the attention of the trial court prior to the entry of judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cherry v. Chambers““ * * * For this reason and the further reason that a motion to strike is not the proper pleading by which to assert the bar of limitations, the trial court committed no error in overruling the defendants’ motion to strike the reply. See Berry v. Geiser Mfg. Co. IS Okl. 364, 85 P. 699 ; Crumpt [Crump] v. Lanham, 67 Okl. 33 , 168 P. 43 ; and Bronson v. Reed, 167 Okl. 447 , 30 P.2d 459 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.