Eckert v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 1997
24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lombardo v. City of Dallas · Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles · Landay v. Board of Zoning Appeals · City of West University Place v. Ellis · City of Amarillo v. Stapf
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The authorizations by ordinance of the continuation of such non-conforming uses, already legally established in such areas when the ordinance takes effect, has been uniformly recognized; and such provisions have repeatedly been held not to render them invalid; and not to amount to unreasonable discrimination against others desiring to engage in additional nonconforming uses. Such ordinances operate prospectively and not retroactively. Undoubtedly these provisions are designed to avoid running afoul of the constitutional provisions against taking of property without compensation and guaranteeing due process of law. In any event, they have been repeatedly sustained. See Lombardo v. City of Dallas, supra [ 124 Tex. 1 ] 73 S.W.2d [475] at page 478; Austin v. Older, 1938, 283 Mich. 667 , 278 N.W. 727 ; Zahn v. Los Angeles Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 , 234 P. 388 ; City of Miami v. Green, 131 Fla. 864 , 180 So. 45 ; Landay v. MacWilliams, 173 Md. 460 , 196 A. 293 , 114 A.L.R. 984 , and annotations thereunder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harrison v. Buckhalt““ . . . It is immaterial whether the area involved was wholly commercial or partly residential and partly commercial. The proposed business of selling beer and wine on the premises was not one which Jacobs had the inherent right to engage in. It is a matter of common knowledge that the sale of intoxicants is accompanied with objections not common to other types of commercial enterprizes, and such facts constitute valid grounds for a separate classification or prohibition thereof in a given commercial area, for the protection of the health, morals, safety, peace and convenience of the public. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To construe the Liquor Control Act as limiting the powers of the City, in zoning ordinances affecting sale of liquor, to the terms and conditions therein stated, would make [the Liquor Control] Act, so far as Liquor Zoning is concerned, repeal many other provisions of the statutes giving broad governing powers to home rule cities. This obviously was never intended by the Legislature.”
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.