Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 NY2D 302 - Laba v. Carey

Laba v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

150
cited by 150 later decisions
5
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Broad v. Rockwell International Corp. (1981), Cruden Sa v. Bank of New York (1992)

27 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 state decisions

50019711980199020002010decided

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 Fleischman v. . Furgueson · Raleigh Associates, Inc. v. Henry · Acme Realty Co. v. . Schinasi · Brown v. . Richter · Friedman v. Handelman

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

  1. “[A] court should not `adopt an interpretation' which will operate to leave a `provision of a contract without force and effect.' . . . Stated differently, our concern is with the intent of the parties `to the extent that they evidenced what they intended by what they wrote' . . . and that intent must be gleaned from the several provisions of the contract.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““4. .Covenants, restrictions, utility agreement and easement of record, if any, now in force, provided same are not now violated. 5. Any state of facts an accurate survey may show, provided same does not render title unmarketable.””
    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.