Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 237 Va. 422 - Packett v. Herbert

Packett v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC (2017), 42 Va. App. 65 - 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality (2003)

24 state decisions

1401989199020002010decided

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 Wright v. Castles · Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services · Hampton Roads Sanitation District v. McDonnell · Ryland Group, Inc. v. Wills · National Energy Corp. v. O'QUINN

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

  1. “[Appellants] cannot avoid responsibility for the maintenance of a nuisance upon or near their property because the activities complained of were their customers', not their own. In our opinion, [appellants] could be responsible for their patrons' offensive actions amounting to a nuisance, if those activities occur on or near the premises, and are reasonably related to the operation of [appellants' business].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the adjoining owner is only entitled to such damages as he may have sustained up to the time of the abatement of the nuisance, not including damages for the permanent diminution in the value of his property”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “create[s] an issue of fact [for the jury] as to whether [appellant was] responsible for the conduct of a nuisance upon [his] property.”
    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.