Williams Realty Co. v. Robey’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Turner v. Brocato (1973), Boucher v. Boyer (1984)
2 district · 32 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 Peabody Heights Co. v. Willson · Newbold v. Peabody Heights Co. · Canton Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore · White v. Flannigain · Beach v. North Chesapeake Beach Land & Improvement Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The relation of.lots in a water front settlement to. the water differs from that of abutting lots to a city square. There is naturally a greater dependence, if, indeed, we should not say that access to the water is an essential, for in that access lies the purpose of the. settlement and the purchase of lots in it. As Williams, testifying for the defendant, agreed, facilities for access to the water constituted the chief selling point. Therefore the case is concerned with a possible estoppel or implied covenant with relation to an incident almost, if not altogether, of importance equal to that of a bordering street. And when a buyer is persuaded, as in this case, by the assurances of restricted facilities in a com-, munity beach lying immediately across his front road or street, the advantages appear with sufficient clearness and certainty to have been sold to him as an incident, and in a court of equity repudiation must be prevented by injunction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klein v. Dove““It is a question of intention, and a clear manifestation of it must appear. North Beach v. [North Chesapeake Beach] Land & Imp. Co., 172 Md. 101, 115 , 191 A. 71 . It is not always, as is suggested by some questions asked witnesses here, the purpose actually in the grantor’s mind that must be carried out. From expressions used, inducements extended, the law determines rights and obligations and not from subsequently disclosed mental operations to the contrary. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 811 and 1294. This manifestation of intention need not he found in the conveyance; a sufficiently clear manifestation in a previous agreement must have the same result. Newbold v. Peabody Heights Co., 70 Md. 493, 499 , 17 A. 372 , 3 L.R.A. 579 ; Peabody Heights Co. [of Baltimore City] v. Willson, 82 Md. 186 , 32 A. 386, 1077 , 36 L.R.A. 393 ; Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1294 and 1295.””
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.