Frost v. Lucey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The courts generally have construed similar zoning statutes or ordinances as requiring a substantial change or difference in character before condemning a use as an unlawful extension of a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance, and mere increase in the volume of business done pursuant to a nonconforming use by natural expansion and growth of trade cannot be considered an unlawful extension of that use. . . An expansion or extension in the volume of business in pursuance of a nonconforming use does not constitute such a change of the use or such an expansion or extension thereof as is within the prohibition of the zoning ordinance or enabling act unless it amounts to a change in the character of the existing nonconforming use.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mason v. Crooker-Mulligan · City of Auburn v. Eastern Die Co.

2. ““ * * * it is fundamental and a rule of general application in the concept of appellate practice that save for certain recognized exceptions, [jurisdictional issues being explicitly mentioned] questions of error not raised and properly preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” (p. 445)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Younie v. State · Libby v. Perry

3. ““Section 8. (a) Any lawful use of a building, premises, or part thereof existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be continued, although such use does not conform with the above provisions hereof. In the case of an existing building or part thereof designed and intended for a non-conforming use, such use in a part thereof may be extended throughout the building or part thereof so designed and intended or changed to any use permitted in a zone where such non-conforming use would be permitted and not more objectionable or detrimental to the neighborhood, provided no structural alterations are hereafter made therein, except those required by law, ordinance or regulation. Any use of premises injurious, noxious or offensive to a neighborhood by reason of the emission of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration or noise is prohibited.” (Emphasis added). 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Auburn v. Eastern Die Co.