Kearney v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 115 N.J. Super. 409 - Sosanie v. Pernetti Holding Corp. (1971), Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Rubish (1982)
34 state decisions
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 Orr v. . Doubleday, Page Co. · First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Frazelle · Harrington v. . Taylor · Holton v. . Andrews · Merchants Oil Co. v. Mecklenburg County
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a tenant under a lease for a fixed term of one year, or more, holds over after the end of the term the lessor may eject him or recognize him as a tenant. Murrill v. Palmer, 164 N.C. 50 , 80 S.E. 55 [(1913)]. If the lessor elects to treat him as a tenant, a new tenancy relationship is created as of the end of the former term. This is, by presumption of law, a tenancy from year to year, the terms of which are the same as those of the former lease in so far as they are applicable, in the absence of a new contract between them or of other circumstances rebutting such presumption. Williams v. King, 247 N.C. 581 , 101 S.E.2d 308 [(1958)]; Murrill v. Palmer, supra ; Holton v. Andrews, 151 N.C. 340 , 66 S.E. 212 [(1909)]; Harty v. Harris, 120 N.C. 408 , 27 S.E. 90 [(1897)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is not the case of a landowner accepting a payment for the use of his land after the original term expired and when the tenant has already lost his right to extend the lease and the lessor has acquired a right to be paid for the use of the land during the holding over. Here, the lessor requested the tenant to pay the second year’s rent before the lessor was entitled thereto and while the tenant still had the right to give the notice specified in the lease. By requesting and accepting payment of rent for the second year under those circumstances, the lessor lulled the tenant into the belief that the extension of the term through the second year was an accomplished fact and so cannot, after the expiration of the time for giving notice, be heard to say that this condition precedent to extension has not been met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“if the tenant holds over after the end of the original term and pays rent as provided in the lease, the presumption is that the option to extend the term of the lease has been exercised and the tenancy continues to be that created by the lease, the rights conferred by it continuing into the extended term.”
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.