Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 387 So. 2d 999 - Acopian v. Haley

387 So. 2d 999 - Acopian v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2004

10 state decisions

70198019902000decided

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 Barton v. Moline Properties, Inc. · Osius v. Barton · Osius v. Barton · Allen v. Avondale Co. · McEwen v. Larson

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

  1. “The logic of this and similar holdings has been questioned because the focal point in the determination should be whether the intent of the original parties and their purpose in restricting the land have been frustrated by a change in conditions, not who owns the parcel sought to be relieved of the restrictions at the time the action for removal is filed. § 11.12, Florida Real Property Practice III, The Florida Bar, C.L.E. (2d Ed. 1976).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the test for determining the continued validity of restrictive covenants ... is whether or not the original purpose and intention of the parties to such covenant can be reasonably carried out, in the light of alleged material changes which are claimed to have effectually frustrated their object without fault or neglect on the part of the one who seeks to be relieved of their observance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The trial court found that the highest and best use of appellees' property would be the proposed condominium use, but, while this may be a good test in other situations, it is not the correct test in determining continued validity of restrictive covenants.”
    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.