Smith v. Tygrett’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1992
3 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 Goodwin Bros. v. Combs Lumber Co. · Parrish v. Newbury · Ashland-Boyd County City-County Health Dept. v. Riggs · Picklesimer v. Phelps Roofing Co. · Cochran v. Long
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) This lot shall be known and described as a residential lot. No structure shall be erected, altered or permitted to remain on this lot other than one single family or two-family dwelling, not to ex ceed two and one-half stories in height and a private garage for not more than three cars. (2) [Provides set-back line not closer than 50 feet from front lot line, nor closer than 25 feet to any side street line, or side lot line.] (7) These protective covenants are to run with the land until 1970, and they may be enforced by any property owner of a lot of the original Thomas tract containing these or similar covenants. (8) As there are adjacent or nearby lots being sold for residential purposes, the plans for the residence to be erected on this lot shall be submitted to the grantor for his approval before the building is commenced so that they will be advised as to whether or not there are any objections to same which would interfere with the plans of the subdivision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stowe v. Briggs
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.