Van Meter v. Manion’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Booker v. Old Dominion Land Co. (1948), Southwest Petroleum Co. v. Logan (1937)
28 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 Trustees of Columbia College v. . Thacher · McClure v. . Leaycraft · Landell v. Hamilton · Van Cleve v. Berkey · Koehler v. Rowland
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been said that a restriction arising from a restrictive covenant is not an estate in land, as is a legal easement, but is purely a creature of equity arising out of contract.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Plaintiff was the owner of a corner lot in an addition to Oklahoma City restricted by a plat restriction to use for residential purposes only. A judgment of the trial court ordering that a permit issue to erect a business building on said lot on account of a change of conditions in the neighborhood surrounding said restricted area is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence where it is shown that there was no purpose or plan on the part of the residents of the restricted area to abandon the original scheme or purpose of creating an exclusive residential section, and where the evidence as to a change of conditions is not sufficient to show that the original purpose cannot now be accomplished, and where it is shown that substantial benefits still inure to the residents of the restricted area by the enforcement of the restrictions. “The fact that traffic has increased on streets surrounding a restricted area may be considered as evidence showing a change of conditions, but is not sufficient to warrant the releasing of affected property from a restrictive covenant. “The lot of plaintiff cannot be considered separate and apart from its relation to’the entire restricted addition. The fact that plaintiff’s lot is more valuable for business purposes than residential purposes is not sufficient to warrant a breach of the restrictions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““On the other hand, the mere fact that, because of changed conditions in ■the adjacent territory, land so restricted to residential use will sell for more money for other uses does not signify the purpose of the restrictions has been ■defeated. If it continues to be reasonably fit for the contemplated residential use, and is so used, the circumstance that it can be sold at a higher price freed of the restrictions simply means each home-owner has a heavier investment in his property.” (Citing cases.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trotter v. Loum
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.