136 N.C. App. 71 - Harry v. Crescent Resources, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 107 N.C. App. 154 - Shear v. Stevens Building Co. · Shields v. Bobby Murray Chevrolet · Cleveland Realty Company v. Hobbs · Spaugh v. City of Charlotte · Hawthorne v. Realty Syndicate, Inc.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a developer sells residential lots in a subdivision by reference to a recorded subdivision plat which divides the tract of land into ‘streets, lots, parks and playgrounds,’ a purchaser of one of the residential lots ‘acquires the right to have the streets, parks and playgrounds kept open for his reasonable use, and this right is not subject to revocation except by agreement.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Plaintiffs also contend that the doctrine of implied equitable servitudes applies in this case. Under that doctrine, the owners of lots in a subdivision in which most of the lots were conveyed subject to common restrictions, may impose those restrictions against persons whose deeds did not include such restrictions, but who were on notice that such restrictions applied to the lots in the subdivision. We have not adopted the doctrine of implied equitable servitudes in North Carolina, although our Supreme Court has recognized that when an owner of a tract of land subdivides it and conveys distinct parcels to separate grantees, imposing common restrictions upon the use of each parcel pursuant to a general plan of development, the restrictions may be enforced by any grantee against... any purchaser who takes land in the tract with notice of the restrictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the fact that the [unmarked] remnant parcels were depicted on the subdivision plat is not sufficient to demonstrate a clear expression of the intent of Crescent to grant an easement appurtenant to the plaintiffs.”
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.