Schultz v. Pritts’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 district · 212 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 223 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 47 Cal. 3d 654 - Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988), Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enterprises, Inc. (2002)
8 district · 212 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 United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc. · Harbor Island Marina v. BOARD OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT CTY. · Heath v. M. C.C. of Baltimore · Hyson v. Montgomery County Council · Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, Inc.
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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The special exception use is a part of the comprehensive zoning plan sharing the presumption that, as such, it is in the interest of the general welfare, and therefore, valid. The special exception use is a valid zoning mechanism that delegates to an administrative board a limited authority to allow enumerated uses which the legislature has determined to be permissible absent any fact or circumstance negating the presumption.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We now hold that the appropriate standard to be used in determining whether a requested special exception use would have an adverse effect and, therefore, should be denied is whether there are facts and circumstances that show that the particular use proposed at the particular location proposed would have any adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a special exception use irrespective of its location within the zone.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen the legislative body determines that other uses are compatible with the permitted uses in a use district, but that the beneficial purposes such other uses serve do not outweigh their possible adverse effect, such uses are designated as conditional or special exception uses. Such uses cannot be developed if at the particular location proposed they have an adverse effect above and beyond that ordinarily associated with such uses.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.