413 Pa. Super. 1 - Mann-Hoff v. Boyer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2017
14 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 Van Products Co. v. General Welding & Fabricating Co. · ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. Gaster · Burns Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Boehm · Keefer v. Jones · Becker v. Rittenhouse
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. a separation of title; 2. prior to the separation of title, that the use which gave rise to the easement had been so long continued and so obvious or manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and 3. the easement was necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) whether the claimant is the conveyor or the conveyee, (b) the terms of the conveyance, (c) the consideration given for it, (d) whether the claim is made against a simultaneous conveyance, (e) the extent of necessity of the easement to the claimant, (f) whether reciprocal benefits result to the conveyor and the conveyee, (g) the manner on which the land was used prior to its conveyance, and (h) the extent to which the manner of prior use was or might have been known to the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This appears to conflict with other statements of the traditional test and with the Restatement test, both of which include necessity of the easement to the beneficial enjoyment of the property as a crucial factor in the analysis. One recent case has attempted to resolve this disparity. In Hann v. Saylor, 386 Pa.Super. 248 , 562 A.2d 891 (1989), the court noted that those formulations of the traditional test that do require a showing of necessity do not mean to require a showing of “absolute necessity,” but rather require only that the claimed easement be shown to be convenient or beneficial to the dominant estate. Id. at 251 , 562 A.2d at 893 n. 1 The Hanncourt further opined that where necessity is shown, this argues in favor of recognition of an implied easement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.