Casterton v. Plotkin’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 1955
21 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 Allen v. City of Detroit · Fortesque v. Carroll · McMurtry v. Phillips Investment Co. · 46 N.J. Eq. 386 - Coudert v. Sayre · James v. Irvine
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Clearly the restrictions which she imposed would not have been violated had the purchaser then proceeded to erect upon the lot an apartment house for residence purposes solely. He was under no obligation to improve the property. Allowing the lot to remain vacant imposed no duty upon the owner to watch and object to what others were doing with other lots in the subdivision, in order to protect this vested right. Other purchasers were, in fact, using their lots for residential purposes in harmony with the very use to which lot 66 was restricted. No court has gone so far as to intimate a rule that the mere building of single dwellings or the adoption of any particular style of architecture by others in a block is notice to the owner of a lot only restricted to residential purposes that he must do likewise or protest in order to protect his rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. Ettinger“_ “Complainants have failed to establish a proposed violation by defendant of any of the restrictive covenants in his chain of title, or to clearly show that subsequent events'have by legal implication imposed additions to such original restrictions. Courts of equity do not aid one man to restrict another in the use to which he may put his property unless the right to such aid is clear.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Teagan v. Keywell““Inasmuch as defendant’s deed does contain restrictions specifying just what use can, or cannot, be made of the property, and sets limitations for the kind of building which may be built, nothing further or different is to be implied.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Rabinowitch
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.