Abbinett v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Drummond v. Franck, 252 Ala. 474 , 41 So.2d 268 (1949) (limbs); Bonde v. Bishop, 112 Cal.App.2d 1 , 245 P.2d 617 (1952) (limbs); Anderson v. Weiland, 12 Cal.App.2d 730 , 55 P.2d 1242 (1936) (self-help is limited so that entire tree is not destroyed); Stevens v. Moon, 54 Cal.App. 737 , 202 P. 961 (1921) (roots); McCrann v. Town Plan and Zoning Comm’n, 161 Conn. 65 , 282 A.2d 900 (1971) (roots and branches); Cooke v. McShane, 108 Conn. 97 , 142 A. 460 (1928) (hedge row); Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144 (D.C.1950) (leaves and buds); Olson v. Westerberg, 2 Ill.App.2d 285 , 119 N.E.2d 413 (1954) (branches; may recover cost of removal); Harndon v. Stultz, 124 Iowa 440 , 100 N.W. 329 (1904) (branches and roots); Pierce v. Casady, 11 Kan.App.2d 23 , 711 P.2d 766 (1985) (branches; may not trespass to effect self-help); Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 687 S.W.2d 551 (Ky.Ct.App.1985) (leaves, twigs and seeds); Ponte v. DaSilva, 388 Mass. 1008 , 446 N.E.2d 77 (1983) (sap, leaves); Jurgens v. Wiese, 38 N.W.2d 261 (Neb.1949) (boughs of hedge); Wegener v. Sugarman, 104 N.J.L. 26 , 138 A. 699 (1927) (may not destroy entire tree, however); Turner v. Coppola, 102 Misc.2d 1043 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1980) (tree branches); Adams v. Hahne, 59 Misc.2d 827 , 300 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1969) (may not destroy entire tree); Murray v. Heabron, 74 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio C.P.1947) (branches); Rosa v. Oliveira, 115 R.I. 277 , 342 A.2d 601 (1975) (overhanging limbs); Granberry v. Jones, 188 Tenn. 51 , 216 S.W.2d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 68 Md. App. 107 - Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp.

2. “We adopt the rule stated in Whitesell v. Houlton. This approach voices a rational and fair solution, permitting a landowner to grow and nurture trees and other plants on his land, balanced against the correlative duty of a landowner to ensure that the use of his property does not materially harm his neighbor. The privilege of a landowner to make use of his property as he sees fit is generally qualified by the requirement that he exercise due regard for the interests of those who may be affected by the landowner’s activities on the property. It is the duty of a landowner to utilize his property in a reasonable manner so as not to cause injury to adjoining property. Although a landowner is entitled to use his own property, consistent with the law, in a manner calculated to maximize his own enjoyment, a concomitant of this right is that the use and enjoyment of his estate may not unreasonably interfere with or disturb the rights of adjoining landholders, or create a private nuisance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richard Herring of Herring Chiropractic Clinic v. Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd.

3. “overhanging branches or protruding roots actually cause, or there is imminent danger of them causing, sensible harm to property other than plant life, in ways other than by casting shade or dropping leaves, flowers, or fruit, the damaged or imminently endangered neighbor may require the owner of the tree to pay for the damages and to cut back the endangering branches or roots * * *. [Emphasis partially omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garcia v. Sanchez