Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 Va. 482 - Bragg v. Ives

Bragg v. Ives’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
11
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2008

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states

50192719301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Osborn v. City of Shreveport · 19 N.J. Eq. 294 - Ross v. Butler · Brown v. City of Los Angeles · Saier v. Joy · Densmore v. Evergreen Camp No. 147

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.

  1. “the nuisance complained of will or does produce such a condition of things as, in the judgment of reasonable men, is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We agree with those decisions, however, which hold that when an undertaking establishment invades a community which has previously been strictly residential, and the character of the business, or the manner in which it is conducted, is such as will naturally depress the spirits and sensibilities of those living in close proximity to it, to the extent of weakening their power to resist disease and destroying the comfort, repose and enjoyment of their homes, making them less desirable and thereby materially depreciating their value, then such business is a nuisance to those so affected by it. It is true that the objection to the business must be something more than imaginary, -or an individual aversion to the proximity of the establishment and to the thought of death superinduced by its nearness and the activities carried on in connection with it. The annoyance complained of must be something real, substantial and tangible — one that affects the normal person, not the over-nervous or supersensitive, nor yet the hardened and stoical, but the ordinary men, with ordinary sensibilities, tastes and feelings. The maintenance of an undertaking establishment under circumstances that produce such a result upon such a person goes beyond mere mental disturbance — it involves the physical enjoyment and comfort of the home, with which no business, however lawful and necessary, has the right to interfere.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It requires no deep research in psychology to reach the conclusion that a constant reminder of death has a depressing influence upon the normal person.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.