McCarty v. Sheets’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2007
20 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 152 Ind. App. 497 - Hiatt v. Yergin · 160 Ind. App. 310 - Link v. Sun Oil Company · Philbin v. Carr · 158 Ind. App. 311 - Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. · Rennert v. Shirk
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(R. 45). In McCarty v. Sheets, 423 N.E.2d 297, 300 (Ind.1981), our supreme court held: Cases of adverse possession must, of necessity, be decided on a case by case basis, for what constitutes possession of a”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" 'It must be so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public-at least by the people in the vicinity of the premises. It must be manifest to the community. In the course of twenty years a visible occupancy naturally ought to become notorious. It ought to be so well known and commonly understood that the people residing in the neighborhood could testify with substantial unanimity concerning its existence. Where the people who passed frequently over and along the premises have been unable to see any evidence of occupancy, evidently the possession has not been of the character required by the rule. The purpose of this requirement is to support the principle that a legal title will not be extinguished on flimsy and uncertain evidence. Hence, where there has been no actual notice, the possession must have been so notorious as to warrant the inference that the owner ought to have known that a stranger was asserting dominion over his land. Insidious, desultory, and fugitive acts will not serve that purpose. To have that effect the possession should be clear and satisfactory, not doubtful and equivocal. "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be limited to that portion over which he exercises palpable and continuing acts of ownership, as being the quantity which he claims as his own, there being no other evidence, in such case, to enable us to determine the quantity.”
3 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.