Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 BR 880 - In Re Spano

In Re Spano’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

180199320002010decided

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

Applies 38 U.S.C. § 3710

Relies on Sloan v. Hicks · Nobelman v. American Savings Bank · Ford v. Wainwright · Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co. · Frank and Arlene Wilson v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corporation

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

  1. “[t]o constitute a fixture, it is essential that an article should not only be annexed to the freehold, but that it should clearly appear from an inspection of the property itself, taking into consideration the character of the annexation, the nature and the adaptation of the article annexed to the uses and purposes to which [the realty] was appropriated at the time the annexation was made, and the relation of the party making it to the property in question, that a permanent accession to the freehold was intended to be made by the annexation of the article.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the intention of the annexer as to whether an item is to be a part of the real estate controls the determination of whether that item is a fixture [but while] physical attachment to the land is certainly a factor to be considered in determining intent, it does not appear to be a prerequisite, so that an item could be used in connection with the land, but not permanently attached to it, and still be a real property fixture, especially where the use of the item is particularly adapted to the uses of the portion of the building in which the item is located.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Connecticut law defines fixtures as items which have become part of real property because the party annexing them to the realty intends that result.”
    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.