Perkins v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Building restrictions are looked on as more in the nature of a protection to the property owner and the public than as a restriction as to the use of property. ” see The word ‘building,’ in its ordinary sense, denotes a structure or edifice inclosing a space within its walls and usually covered with a roof; it does not include every species of erection on land, but means only one intended for use as a habitation, or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use constituting a fabric or edifice, such as a house, store, or shed. However, in its broadest sense it may include any character of structure according to the connection in which it is used and the purpose sought to be effected by its use. The marked tendency of the courts is to give effect to the intention of the parties, and, in so doing, to extend the meaning of the term to cover structures that ordinarily would not fall within the strict definition of the word. In a restrictive covenant intended to retain to the grantor an unobstructed view, by prohibiting the erection of any building on a certain part of the premises, the word ‘building’ includes any structure which will obstruct the view.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 Ill. App. 3d 243 - Freehling v. Development Management Group, Inc.

2. “Even if defendants' garage were entirely below the grade so that no portion of its side walls projected above the surface of the surrounding ground, such a structure would violate the purpose sought to be accomplished by [the second] objective. This is so because there would have been presented to the view of persons passing along the street the exposed front side of the garage eight and one-half feet in height and 2lY¿ feet in width, such garage front being only five feet back from the front lotline. The same could not help but constitute a blemish detracting from the appearance of the neighborhood”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 191 Wis. 2d 154 - Zinda v. Krause

3. “It appears obvious that the two main objectives sought to be accomplished by the restriction ... prohibiting the erection of any building on the 30 foot space lying between the building set back line and the front lot line, are as follows: (1) To prevent the obstruction of the view of the owners of adjoining properties; and, (2) To foster and preserve the attractiveness of the platted area as a desirable residential section by requiring that the homes to be erected therein be set back a uniform distance from the street.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Depaoli