32 Wash. 2d 159 - Hebb v. Severson’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 107 Wash. 2d 388 - Willener v. Sweeting (1986), 71 Wash. App. 194 - Denny's Restaurants, Inc. v. Security Union Title Insurance (1993)
2 district · 30 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 Davis v. Lee · Dobbs v. Norcross · Chesebro v. . Moers · Colpe v. Lindblom · Green v. Tidball
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any right to, or interest in, land which may subsist in third persons, to the diminution of the value of the estate of the tenant, but consistent with the passing of the fee; and, also, a burden upon the land depreciative of its value, such as a lien, easement, or servitude, which, though adverse to the interest of the landowner, does not conflict with his conveyance of the land in fee.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Finally, the fact that the contract contains a provision that protective restrictions shall not be deemed encumbrances cannot aid the respondents. It is not the existence of protective restrictions, as shown by the record, that constitutes the encumbrances alleged by the appellants; but, rather, it is the presently existing violation of one of these restrictions that constitutes such encumbrances, in and of itself. The authorities so hold, on the rationale, to which we subscribe, that to force a vendee to accept property which in its present state violates a building restriction without a showing that the restriction is unenforcible, would in effect compel the vendee to buy a lawsuit. 66 C. J. 911, Vendor and Purchaser, § 590; Dichter v. Isaacson, 132 A. 481 , 138 A. 920, 4 . N. J. Misc., 297; Chesebro v. Moers, 233 N. Y. 75 , 134 N. E. 842 , 21 A. L. R. 1270.” (p. 172.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lohmeyer v. Bower“not only to hold his land, but to hold it in peace; and if he wishes to sell it, to be reasonably sure that no flaw or doubt will come up to disturb its marketable value.”
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.