Scholtes v. McColgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 state decisions

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

1. ““The intention to adopt a general plan of development with restrictions may be indicated in different ways. When it is intended to adopt such a general plan, the simplest method is to include all of the restrictions in every deed, and to state that they bind not only the property conveyed, but also the property retained, and that they arfe placed upon the property for the benefit of the owners of all parts of it. The mere filing of a plat without restrictions on it does not indicate the adoption of any uniform restricted plan of development. * * * The absence of a plat may be evidence that no general plan of development was contemplated. * * * In other words, the whole question becomes a question of fact, to be determined from all the circumstances in the case. In its consideration, there must be borne in mind the often repeated doctrine that doubts should be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of property.” Scholtes v. McColgan, 184 Md. 480, 489-90 , 41 A. 2d 479 (1945).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 22 Md. App. 434 - First United Pentecostal Church v. Seibert · Roper v. Camuso

2. “[I]f in such a case it appears that it was the intention of the grantors that the restrictions were part of a uniform general scheme or plan of development and use which should affect the land granted and the land retained alike, they may be enforced in equity; that covenants creating restrictions are to be construed strictly in favor of the freedom of the land, and against the person in whose favor they are made; and that the burden is upon one seeking to enforce such restrictions, where they are not specifically expressed in a deed, to show by clear and satisfactory proof that the common grantor intended that they should affect the land retained as a part of a uniform general scheme of development.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Steuart Transportation Co. v. Ashe · Roper v. Camuso

3. ““[Tjhere must be borne in mind the often repeated doctrine that doubts should be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of property.” (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gilchrist v. Chester