Adams v. Holcomb’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2014
11 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 Michaels v. . Fishel · Blake v. Minkner · 90 Ind. App. 227 - Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Rushton · Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. v. Craig · Kinnaman v. Kinnaman
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . where the action is brought by a landlord against his tenant merely to recover possession of the real estate the tenant is estopped while continuing in possession, to dispute the title of his landlord, and the landlord is entitled to recover without further proof of his title than the fact that the defendant is his tenant in possession as such. Warvelle, Ejectment §236. Of course this rule as to estoppel does not apply when the purpose of the suit is to establish title, or where the decree sought would not only give possession of the land but by estoppel settle the title to it. Tuell v. Homann (1915), 60 Ind. App. 285 , 108 N. E. 596 . See 89 A. L. R. 1295 Note.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In considering the allegations of this complaint we are forced to disregard all conclusions of fact contained therein complained of in appellant’s motion to make the complaint more specific, which motion should have been sustained. The appellees’ act in opposing and procuring the court to overrule this motion must be deemed an admission that no facts were relied upon except expressly averred. Enterprise, etc., Pub. Co. v. Craig (1924), 195 Ind. 302 , 144 N. E. 542 ; Neal v. Baker (1926), 198 Ind. 393 , 153 N. E. 768 .” We may dispose of the specific charges of negligence alleged by appellant, therefore, because he has alleged only conclusions of fact unsupported by any specific facts.”
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.