Bortz v. Troth’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1984
12 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 Belmont Laboratories, Inc. v. Heist · Nesbit v. Riesenman · White v. Old York Road Country Club · Mitchell v. Guaranty Corp. · Calvary Presbyterian Church v. Jones
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The pivotal issue is whether from this record the pertinent portion of Gilmore Addition can properly be said to be in a state of transition and no longer exclusively residential. If it has lost its strictly residential character, then a gasoline filling and service station cannot be determined a nuisance per se and its operation can only be enjoined if a nuisance in fact determined by the manner in which it is operated and the serious results to the immediate neighborhood. “The character of the use of property in a particular neighborhood is not the sole and decisive test of the right to operate a given business therein: White v. Country Club, 322 Pa. 147, 151 , 185 A. 316 . Consideration must be given to the nature, type, and proximity of dwellings, the effect of property values, increased hazards and dangers to life and limb, and any other circumstance which tends to establish the type of neighborhood into which a business is sought to be introduced. If from all circumstances it clearly appears that the neighborhood has been and remains exclusively residential, cases determining a service or filling station to be a nuisance per se control and the court en banc erred in dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill . “The error of the majority of the court en banc was overemphasis upon the proximity of existing business enterprises and failure to recognize the fact that no inroads had been within the area in question which has remained exclusively residential. Boundarie”
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.