Hall v. Koehler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`The law favors the free and untrammeled use of real property. Restrictions in conveyances on the fee are regarded unfavorably, and are therefore strictly construed,' Mathews Real Estate Co. v. National Printing Engraving Co., 330 Mo. 190 , 48 S.W.2d 911 , l.c. 913, 81 A.L.R. 1039 , and cases there cited, but when the intention is clear the courts will enforce such restrictions. [Kenwood Land Co. v. Hancock Inv. Co. et al., 169 Mo. App. 715 , l.c. 722, 155 S.W. 861 .] As to whether or not the incidental use, for business, of a dwelling, the use of which is restricted to dwelling purposes, violated the restriction depends upon the wording of the restriction and the kind of business to which the dwelling is put. [ 14 Am. Jur., p. 622 , Sec. 214.] The wording of the restriction here concerned is plain, hence there is no room for argument in that respect. . . . While the law favors the `free and untrammeled use of real property,' yet restrictions thereon cannot be and are not to be disregarded. A provision in a trust agreement restricting lots to business or residence purposes prevents use of the lots for school purposes. [Britton et al. v. School District et al., 328 Mo. 1185 , 44 S.W.2d 33 .] And where use is restricted to school purposes, the property may not be used for residential purposes. [Peters et al. v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618 , 232 S.W. 1024 , 17 A.L.R. 543 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Andrews v. Metropolitan Building Co.