Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 INDAPP 184 - McCaslin v. State

McCaslin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 1945
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1945

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

2019051910192019301940decided

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 Franklin v. Lee · Worthley v. Burbanks · State ex rel. Goodman v. Halter · Shaw v. Merchants National Bank · Bohr v. Neuenschwander

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 534 , 45 N. E. 779 , it is said that, in order to constitute adverse possession, five indispensable elements must appear: ‘(1) It must be hostile and under a claim of right; (2) it must bo actual ; (3) it must he open and notorious; (4) it must be exclusive; (5) it must be continuous.’ In support of this rule the court cites numerous authorities. In Peterson v. McCullough, 50 Ind. 35 , the court said: ‘To acquire a right by prescription, there must be an actual enjoyment. Prescription acquires for the party precisely what he has possessed, and nothing more, and in proving a prescription the user of the right is the only evidence of the extent to which it has been acquired. The use and enjoyment of what is claimed must have been adverse, under a claim of right, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the estate, in, over, or out of which the easement prescribed for is claimed, and while such owner was able in law to assert and enforce his rights, and to resist such adverse claim if not well founded.’ ””
    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.