C. & C. INCORPORATED v. Semple’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2011
20 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 Brackett v. Board of Appeal · Board of Zoning Appeals v. Fowler · Magrann v. Zoning Board of Adjustment · Board of Zoning Appeals v. Combs · Planning Bd. of Springfield v. BD. OF SPRINGFIELD
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a lawful use existing on the effective date of the zoning restriction and continuing since that time in non-conformance to the ordinance.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Board of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, 200 Va. 471, 477 , 106 S.E. 2d 755, 759 , we held that ‘[t]he court may not disturb the board’s decision unless it has applied erroneous principles of law or where the board’s discretion is involved unless the evidence before the court proves to its satisfaction that the board’s decision is plainly wrong and violative of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.’ See also Burkhardt v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 192 Va. 606, 613 , 66 S.E. 2d 565 , 569; Hopkins v. O’Meara, 197 Va. 202, 205 , 89 S.E.2d 1, 3 , and Board of Zoning Appeals of Alexandria v. Fowler, 201 Va. 942, 948 , 114 S.E.2d 753, 758 ; 2 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 15-7 (3d ed.) at p. 148, and 8A McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 35.309 (3rd ed.). “On appeal there is a presumption that the Board of Zoning Appeals acted correctly and the burden is on the appellant to show to the satisfaction of the court either that the permit granted by the Board was contrary to law or that the Board’s decision was plainly wrong under the evidence. See Board of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, supra, 200 Va. at p. 476 , 106 S.E.2d at p. 759 ; Wicker Apartments, Inc. v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 263, 269 , 99 S.E.2d 656, 660 ; Hopkins v. O’Meara, supra, 197 Va. at p. 205 , 89 S.E.2d at p. 3 .””
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.