Shpak v. Oletsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he doctrine of quasi-easements has been extended to include established ways where they are reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the property conveyed---- A distinction has been maintained in the law between implied grants and implied reservations. If an easement is ... necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the premises granted, it will be implied that the grant included the easement. However, if a grantor intends to reserve any rights ... he must reserve them expressly, and the only exception is of easements, including ways, of actual, strict necessity---- If, however, there is a simultaneous conveyance ... of both the serviently and dominantly used parts of land, the more liberal implied grant rule applies and not the more strict implied reservation test.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 100 Md. App. 144 - Beck v. Mangels · Rau v. Collins

2. ““ ‘It is not the necessity which creates the right of way, but the fair construction of the acts of the parties.’ The necessity merely furnishes evidence as to the real intention of the parties. ‘For the law will not presume that it was the intention of the parties that one should convey land to the other in such manner that the grantee could derive no benefit from the conveyance; nor that he should so convey a portion as to deprive himself of the enjoyment of the remainder. The law under such circumstances will give effect to the grant according to the presumed intent of the parties.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rau v. Collins · 39 Md. App. 271 - Michael v. Needham

3. ““It has been stated that the moment a severance occurs by the sale of a part, the right of the owner to re-distribute the properties of the respective portions ceases and easements or servitudes are created corresponding to the benefits and burdens mutually existing at the time of the sale. This is not a rule for the benefit of purchasers, only, but is entirely reciprocal. Hence, if instead of a benefit conferred a burden has been imposed upon the portion sold, the purchaser, provided the marks of this burden are open and visible, takes the property with a servitude upon it. The parties a,re presum,ed to contract in reference to the condition of the property at the time of the sale, and neither has a right, by altering arrangements then openly existing, to change materially the relative value of the respective parts. “It is perhaps unfortunate that the courts, in determining whether, in a particular case, an easement corresponding to a pre-existing quasi easement has passed with the land, have usually failed to recognize that the question is primarily one of construction, and have instead undertaken to lay down absolute rules as to what characteristics the particular easement or quasi easement must have, implying that, if it has these characteristics, the easement will pass as a matter of law. The characteristics ordinarily referred to in this connection are, as above indicated, that the user be apparent, that it be continuous, and that it be necessary, each of which will be ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 203 Md. App. 495 - Purnell v. Beard & Bone, LLC