Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 PACOMMW 180 - Redevelopment Authority v. Stepanik

Redevelopment Authority v. Stepanik’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
6
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2003

8 state decisions

401976198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “[p]erson in possession. Person having pos-sessory rights, who can control what goes on on [the] premises. One who has actual use, possession or control of a thing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is clear that an owner who conducts a business primarily for the lease or rental of his real property is not an "occupant" of such property. "Occupant" is defined as "one who has the actual use, possession or control of a thing." Black's Law Dictionary 1230 (4th ed. rev. 1968). (Emphasis added.) "Occupancy", with respect to realty, is defined variously as actual possession or the "act of taking and holding possession." Id . 1229. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, "occupancy" requires more than the mere right to possess or control property — the right to possess *Page 268 or control must actually be exercised. Thus, while an owner who conducts a business primarily for the lease or rental of his real property may have the right to possess or control the leased premises, he does not have the actual possession or control to be an owner- occupant .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(b) Any displaced person who is displaced from his place of business or from his farm operation shall be entitled, in addition to any payment received under subsection (a) of this section, to damages for dislocation of such business or farm operation as follows: (3) In addition to damages under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, damages of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) nor less than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500), in an amount equal to either (i) forty times the actual monthly rental, in the case of a tenant, or forty times the fair monthly rental value, in the case of owner-occupancy, or (ii) the average annual net earnings, whichever is greater. . . . (Emphasis added.)”
    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.