Synes Appeal’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 13 Cal. 3d 684 - County of San Diego v. Miller (1975), 96 Wash. 2d 95 - Spokane School District No. 81 v. Parzybok (1981)
6 federal appellate · 47 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 Powell Appeal · Hess v. Vinton Colliery Co. · Barnes v. Rea · Kaufmann v. Pittsburgh · Reed v. Lukens
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Despite the failure to rezone, Synes had never elected to purchase. Not having elected to purchase, he did not accept the offer implicit in the option, the offer by Hughes to sell. The agreement between Hughes and Synes was not, therefore, sufficient in law to work an equitable conversion of the realty in question. Consequently, legal and equitable title to the land remained in Hughes and Son, Inc. “However, a claim by appellant [Synes] is also made against appellee Authority for damages sustained by him because of the loss of his right to elect to purchase. In other words, as of the date of condemnation, Synes could still have hoped, but for the condemnation, for a future rezoning. In lieu of a reclassification, he could nevertheless have elected to purchase. But the condemnation prevented this and, therefore, destroyed a valuable right he possessed. At the trial, he repeatedly attempted to offer testimony with respect to the value of the land. This was rejected because he lacked title to the premises. He was advised that he could give testimony with respect to the value of the option he had held and which the condemnation had destroyed. The lower court concluded that Synes should receive nothing for this loss because (1) by accepting the return of his purchase money ‘down payment/ he had elected to consider the agreement void and (2) he adduced no proof at the trial of its worth. We cannot agree that the acceptance of the return of the $9,000 down payment worked an e”
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.