Five Oaks Corp. v. Gathmann’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Green v. Garrett (1949), Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Cae-Link Corp. (1993)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 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 The Mayor Recorder Aldermen and Common Council of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Canal Company and William Turnbull · Adams v. Michael · Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Inc. v. Albert · Hart v. Wagner · Gilbough v. West Side Amusement 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law has been long settled that an individual may file a bill to restrain the continuance of a public nuisance if it injures or impairs the value of his property. * * * “This doctrine is not applicable to public nuisances alone. It applies also to any situation where the use of property by one person damages or injures another. (Citing Scott v. Bay, 3 Md. 431 .) * * * “ ‘There is no question or difficulty in regard to the principle invoked by the complainants in this case. The power to interfere by injunction to restrain a party from so using his own property as to destroy or materially prejudice the rights of his neighbor, and thus to enforce the maxim, “sic utere iuo ut alienum non laedas,” is not only a well established jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, but is one of great utility, and which is constantly exercised. Indeed, without such jurisdiction, parties would, in many cases, suffer the greatest wrongs, for which actions at law would afford them no adequate redress. It is not every inconvenience, however, in the nature of a nuisance to a party’s dwelling, especially in a large commercial and manufacturing city, that will call forth the restraining power of a Court of Chancery by injunction. To justify an injunction to restrain an existing or threatened nuisance to a dwelling-house, the injury must be shown to be of such a character as to diminish materially the value of the property as a dwelling, and seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule which must control is whether the nuisance complained of will or does produce such a condition of things as in the judgment of reasonable men is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities, tastes, and habits, such as in view of the circumstances of the case is unreasonable and in derogation of the rights of the party (citations) subject to the qualification that it is not every inconvenience that will call forth the restraining power of a court. The injury must be of such a character as to diminish materially the value of the property as a dwelling and seriously interfere with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of it.””
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.