Viterbo v. Friedlander’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 11 district · 82 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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““destroyed in part, the lessee may either demand a diminution of the price, or a revocation of the lease.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Claude Neon Federal Co. v. Meyer Bros., Inc. · Henry Rose Mercantile & Mfg. Co. v. Smith

2. ““The general purpose and the common rule of the Civil Law as expressed in the Code of Louisiana, are: that the lessor shall secure to the lessee the possession, use and enjoyment of the thing leased, against everything but the fault of the latter; and that any loss of the thing, or deprivation of its use or enjoyment by accidents or fortuitous events, shall be borne by the lessor and not by the lessee. This appears from the general provisions in the articles above quoted, by which the lessor is bound, from the very nature of the contract of lease, and without any clause to that effect, not only to deliver the thing leased to the lessee, but also to maintain it in such a condition as to serve the purpose for which it is leased, to cause the lessee to be in peaceable possession of the thing during the continuance of the lease, to make, during its continuance, all repairs, except some petty internal ones, and, to make even those when rendered necessary by unforeseen events; as well as by articles 2697 (2667) and 2699 (2669), which apply both to country estates and to town houses, and entitle the lessee, whenever by a fortuitous event, and without his fault, the thing is either destroyed, or ceases to be fit for the purpose for which it has been leased, or its use is much impeded, to demand the annulment of the lease, and if it is only destroyed in part, to demand either a re vocation of the lease or a diminution of the rent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 La. App. 290 - Chargeois v. Fiero

3. ““But as to the nature and effect of a lease for years at a certain rent, which the lessee agrees to pay, and containing no express covenant on the part of the lessor, the two systems differ materially. The common law regards such a lease as the grant of an estate for years, which the lessee takes a title in, and is bound to pay the stipulated rent for, notwithstanding any injury by flood, fire, or external violence, at least unless the injury is such a destruction of the land as to amount to an eviction; and by that law the lessor is under no implied covenant to repair, or even that the premises shall be fit for the purpose for which they are leased. Fowler v. Bott, 6 Mass. 63 ; 3 Kent, Comm. 465, 466; Broom, Leg. Max. (3d Ed.) 213, 214; Doupe v. Genin, 45 N. Y. 119 ; Kingsbury v. Westfall, 61 N. Y. 356 ; Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. Law, 331 ; Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380 ; Warehouse Co. v. Carr, 5 C. P. Div. 507.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Felton v. City of Cincinnati