Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 CONN 61 - Dinan v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Dinan v. Board of Zoning Appeals’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
6
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals (1996), Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island (2008)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions

1901991200020102020decided

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 Moore v. City of East Cleveland · Poe v. Ullman · Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas · Brown v. North Carolina · 27 Cal. 3d 123 - City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson

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

  1. “The transient and separate character of residency by the plaintiffs’ tenants is not as likely to stimulate on their part similar concerns about the quality of living in the neighborhood for the long term. . . . [S]uch occupants . . . are less likely to develop the kind of friendly relationships with neighbors that abound in residential districts occupied by ... families.... [T]hey are not likely to have children who would become playmates of other children living in the area. Neighbors are not so likely to call upon them to . . . perform any of the countless services that families . . . provide to each other as a result of longtime acquaintance and mutual self-interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the restriction of `family use' of a dwelling to occupancy by a traditional family of related persons is not invalid as applied to the plaintiffs and that the ten persons presently occupying the property do not qualify.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “there is no indication of any tie among the plaintiffs' tenants that is likely to outlast their separate occupancies of the premises.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.