Lewis v. Pickering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Had it still been owned by Myers, the predecessor in title, and he had made application lor a variance such as was sought by the defendants, certainly no claim could have been raised that he had created his own hardship. "In Wilson v. Borough of Mountainside, 42 N.J. 426, 453 , 201 A.2d 540, 554 (1964), the New Jersey Supreme Court stated: ‘We wish to make it clear lhat if a prior owner would be entitled to such relief, that right is not. lost to a purchaser simply because he bought with knowledge of the zoning regulation involved. This situation is not within the realm of the sell-created hardship which will generally bar relief.’ "We also cite, with approval, the following language from Griffin Construction Corp. v. Board of Adjustment of Teaneck, 85 N.J.Super. 472 , 205 A.2d 313, 316 (1964): ‘[WJhere an original owner would be entitled to a variance under a specific set of facts, any successor in title is ordinarily entitled to such a variance, providing that no owner in the chain of title since the adoption of the zoning restriction has done anything to create the condition for which relief by variance is sought.' ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stansbury v. Jones

2. “[W]here an original owner would be entitled to a variance under a specific set of facts, any successor in title is ordinarily also entitled to such a variance, providing that no owner in the chain of title since the adoption of the zoning restriction has done anything to create the condition for which relief by variance is sought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Zoning Variance Application of Ray Reilly Tire Mart, Inc.

3. “(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gadhue v. Marcotte