Conduitt v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

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

1. ““When an instrument conveys or grants an interest or right in land, and at the same time contains a covenant in which a right attached to the estate or interest granted is reserved, or when the grantee covenants that he will do some act on the estate, or interest granted, . . . either as respects his remaining interest in the lands out of which an interest is granted, or lands adjacent thereto, such covenant is one which may become annexed to and run with the land, and bind its owners successively. When such grant is made, and contains a covenant so expressed as to show that it was reasonably the intent that it should be continuing, it will be construed as a covenant running with the land. A covenant which may run with the land must have relation to the interest or estate granted, and the act to be done must concern the interest created or conveyed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noblesville Redevelopment Commission v. Noblesville Associates Ltd. Partnership · 87 Ind. App. 520 - Fair Building Co. v. Wineman Realty Co.

2. ““The covenant, as it is there recited by the court, is: ‘Schenck and Isham . . . entered into a written agreement, whereby Schenck acquired the' right to build one of the walls of a brick store, then in process of erection on his own lot, with one-half of its thickness resting on the lot of Isham; and Isham acquired for himself, his heirs or assigns, the right to use said wall by joining a building thereon, and agreed for himself and them to pay one-half of the original cost of said wall, when he or they should use the same.’ In effect, Isham personally agreed for himself and his grantees to pay when he or they should use the wall. In the case before us Hauck made no such agreement. It may be said moreover, that the case of Weld v. Nichols, 17 Pick. 538 , which is regarded as conclusive of the question there involved, will be found to have a very remote, if any, bearing on the question we are considering under this agreement.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Ind. App. 520 - Fair Building Co. v. Wineman Realty Co.