21 Ill. 2d 525 - Petersen v. Corrubia’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 511 So. 2d 112 - Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Development Corp. (1987), 267 Ill. App. 3d 422 - Wilder v. Finnegan (1994)
60 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 Schmidt v. Brown · D. M. Goodwillie Co. v. Commonwealth Electric Co. · 18 Ill. 2d 334 - Mueller v. Keller · Rush v. Collins · Bontz v. Stear
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether there was adverse use of the way under a claim of right for a period of 20 years, or the use of the way is - 17 - only permissive, is almost wholly a question of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is, however, a rebuttable presumption of a grant or ad- • verse right present where a way has been used openly, uninterruptedly, continuously and exclusively for more than 20 years and the origin of such way is not shown. In the absence of evidence tending to show the use of the way to have arisen from a license or other special indulgence which is either revocable or terminable, the conclusion is that it has grown out of a grant by the owner of the land, and has been exercised under a title so derived. The facts to admit .of such presumption, however, are not presumed but must be established by the greater weight of the evidence. Rush v. Collins, 366 Ill. 307 ; Bontz v. Stear, 285 Ill. 599 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Brown's use of this road was adverse, uninterrupted, continuous, and exclusive, and under a claim of right. The fact that other per- sons also used the roadway does not prevent Brown's [use] from being exclusive. 'Exclusive use' does not mean that no one used the way except the claimant of the easement. It means no more than that his right to do so does not depend on a like right in others. The use may be exclusive, within the meaning of this rule, even though Smith and others also used the road.”
1 later decision 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.