Miller v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 42 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In general, the terms ‘easement’ and ‘right-of-way’ are regarded as synonymous. Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 355 Md. 110,126 , 733 A.2d 1055, 1063 (1999). “An express easement by reservation arises when a property owner conveys part of his property to another, but includes language in the conveyance reserving the right to use some part of the transferred land as a right-of-way. Knotts v. Summit Park Co., 146 Md. 234, 239 , 126 A. 280, 281-82 (1924). ‘In every instance of a private easement— that is, an easement not enjoyed by the public—there exists the characteristic feature of two distinct tenements—one dominant and the other servient.’ Bd. of County Comm’rs of Garrett County v. Bell Atlantic-Md., Inc., 346 Md. 160, 175 , 695 A.2d 171, 179 (1997). ‘Where a right of way is established by reservation, the land remains the property of the owner of the servient estate, and he is entitled to use it for any purpose that does not interfere with the easement.’ Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136 , 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940) (citation omitted). The generally accepted rule for an express easement is ‘that [because] an easement is a restriction upon the rights of the servient property owner, no alteration can be made by the owner of the dominant estate which would increase such restriction except by mutual consent of both parties.’ Reid v. Washington Gas Light Co., 232 Md. 545, 548-49 , 194 A.2d 636, 638 (1963) (citation omitted).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas · Garfink v. Cloisters at Charles, Inc.

2. ““An easement is broadly defined as a nonpossessory interest in the real property of another, and arises through express grant or implication.” In general, the terms “easement” and “right-of-way” are regarded as synonymous---- “In every instance of a private easement-that is, an easement not enjoyed by the public-there exists the characteristic feature of two distinct tenements-one dominant and the other servient.” ... The owner of the dominant tenement is entitled to use the easement only in such manner as is fairly contemplated by his grant, whether expressly or implied, and the owner of the servient tenement is entitled to use and enjoy his property to the fullest extent consistent with the reasonably necessary use thereof by his neighbor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant.... “[I]t is axiomatic that the owner of a servient tenement cannot close or obstruct the easement against those who are entitled to its use in such manner as to prevent or interfere with their reasonable enjoyment.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas · 173 Md. App. 459 - Brown v. Smith

3. ““In construing the language of a deed, the basic principles of contract interpretation apply. The grant of an easement by deed is strictly construed. Buckler v. Davis Sand and Gravel Corp., 221 Md. 532, 538, 158 A.2d 319, 323 (1960). The extent of an easement created by an express grant depends upon a proper construction of the conveyance by which the easement was created. Id. ‘The primary rule for the construction of contracts generally—and the rule is applicable to the construction of a grant of an easement—is that a court should ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made, if that be possible.’ Id.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas · Garfink v. Cloisters at Charles, Inc.