Lipsitz v. Parr’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
4 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists (1973), Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek Coal and Land Co. (1974)
4 district · 117 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Hadacheck v. Sebastian · Nectow v. City of Cambridge · Zahn v. Board of Public Works · The Mayor v. Ray
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A permit thus issued without the official power to grant does not, under any principle of estoppel, prevent the permit from being unlawful nor from being denounced by the municipality because of its illegality. In the issuance of permits pursuant to the ordinance at bar, the municipality was not acting in any proprietary capacity nor in the exercise of its contractual powers, but in the discharge of a governmental function through its public officers of limited authority, and the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be here invoked to defeat the municipality in the enforcement of its ordinances, because of an error or mistake committed by one of its officers or agents which has been relied on by the third party to his detriment. Every one dealing with the officers and agents of a municipality is charged with knowledge of the nature of their duties and the extent of their powers, and therefore such a person cannot be considered to have been deceived or misled by their acts when done without legal authority.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A confiscatory [zoning] regulation, such as is illustrated by the case of Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183 , 48 S. Ct. 447 , 72 L. Ed. 842 , where the regulation denied to the land every use but one, and that without value, would, however, be equivalent to taking and be invalid without compensation. The difference between taking and regulation may therefore be one of degree....””
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.