Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 Ind. App. 420 - Schaffner v. Benson

90 Ind. App. 420 - Schaffner v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2013

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

301929193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Utt v. Frey · Livermore v. White · 83 Ind. App. 66 - Michaels v. Pontius · Duryea v. Elkhorn Coal & Coke Corp. · Log-Owners' Booming Co. v. Hubbell

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

  1. ““Abandonment has been defined as the relinquishment of property to which a person is entitled, with no purpose of again claiming it, and without concern as to who may subsequently take possession; and, in considering the question before us, we must keep in mind the distinction between abandonment and laches. As has been said: ‘Abandonment effectuates intention. Laches defeats intention. Abandonment is voluntary. Laches operates in invitum.’. . . To constitute an abandonment of property there must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and an actual relinquishment. . . .” (And cases cited)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under the lease contract, the lessee was not required, upon completion of a nonproductive well, to drill another, nor to do anything with the one completed; nor was it required to remove the machinery or property used in constructing the well at any particular time. Whether appellee could have had the lease canceled at any time before the expiration of the five-year term, it is unnecessary to decide. It is sufficient to say that, under the facts stated in the finding, no steps were, in fact, taken by appellee to terminate the lease. . .”
    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.