Kuznicki v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cupp v. Board of Supervisors · Rotonda Condominium Unit Owners Ass'n v. Rotonda Associates · Cupp v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY · Chesapeake House on the Bay, Inc. v. Virginia National Bank · Mozley v. Prestwould Board of Directors
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he executive organ of the unit owners’ association, if any, and if not, then the unit owners’ association itself, shall have the irrevocable power as attorney-in-fact on behalf of all the unit owners . . . with respect to the common elements, including without limitation the right, in the name of the unit owners’ association... to assert, through litigation or otherwise, defend against, compromise, adjust, and settle any claims or actions related to common elements, other than claims against or actions involving the declarant during any period of declarant control reserved pursuant to subsection A of § 55-79.74....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he phrase, “in any proper case,” limits, rather than expands, the instance in which actions or suits are maintainable by unit owners pursuant to the authority of Code § 55.79-53. Hence, while a unit owner may assert a claim under the provisions of the Condominium Act for the violation of some individual right, Code § 55.79-53 contemplates that a violation of a right held in common by all unit owners shall be maintained by a unit owners’ association, unless the association fails or refuses to assert the common right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We conclude that, under Code §§ 55-79.53(A) and -79.80(B), only a condominium unit owners’ association has standing to sue for claims related to common elements and limited common elements. ,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. Stallings
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.