Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 N.C. 41 - Logan v. Sprinkle

Logan v. Sprinkle’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Schloss v. Jamison (1962), Dealers Specialties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (1982)

28 state decisions

150196119701980199020002010decided

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 Barnette v. Woody · Town of Burnsville v. Boone · City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. · Holden v. Holden · James v. Pretlow

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

  1. “Where a residential subdivision is laid out according to a general scheme or plan and all the lots sold or retained therein are subject to restrictive covenants, and the value of such development to a large extent rests upon the assurance given purchasers that they may rely upon the fact that the privacy of their homes will not be invaded by the encroachment of business, and that the essential residential nature of the property will not be destroyed, the courts will enforce the restrictions and will not permit them to be destroyed by slight departures from the original plan. On the other hand, when there is a general scheme for the benefit of the purchasers in a development, and then, either by permission or acquiescence, or by a long chain of violations, the property becomes so substantially changed that the whole character of the subdivision has been altered so that the whole objective for which the restrictive covenants were originally entered into must be considered at an end, then the courts will not enforce such restrictive covenants.”
    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.