Cannon v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A neighborhood scheme of restrictions to be effective and enforceable must have certain characteristics. It must be universal; that is. the restrictions must apply to all lots of like character brought within the scheme. Unless it be universal it cannot be reciprocal. If it be not reciprocal, then it must as a neighborhood scheme fall, for the theory which sustains a scheme or plan of this character is that the restrictions are a benefit to all. The consideration to each lot owner for the imposition of the restriction upon his lot is that the same restrictions are imposed upon the lots of others similarly situated. If the restrictions upon all lots similarly located are not alike, or some lots are not subject to the restrictions while others are, then a burden would be carried by some owners without a corresponding benefit. ‘The burden follows the benefit’, as was said by Judge White in the case of Sanford v. Keer, 80 N.J.Eq. 240, 83 A. 225 , 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 1090. When there is no benefit there should be no burden. If the benefit be destroyed the burden should end. The requisite universality of the neighborhood plan was referred to by the late Vice Chancellor Green in the case of De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 50 N.J. Eq. 329 , 24 A. 388 , in the following language: “ ‘The law, deductible from these principles and the authorities, applicable to this case, is that where there is a general scheme or plan, adopted and made public by the owner of a tract, for the deve”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. O'Malley v. Central Methodist Church

2. ““Owners of property may by mutual covenant, apart from a conveyance, create enforceable restrictions as to the use of their property. It is not essential to the validity of such an agreement that there be a general scheme of restricting all of the lots in the addition in which the restricted lots are located. On the contrary, valid restrictions may result from a scheme to restrict the lots in only one block, or those facing on only one street.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wald v. West MacGregor Protective Association

3. “not essential that there be a general scheme of restricting all of the lots in the additions. Valid restrictions could result from a scheme to restrict the lots in only one block, or those facing on only one street.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Pollock