Mulac Appeal’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Schubach v. Silver (1975), United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia (1993)
85 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 Cleaver v. Board of Adjustment · Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont · Luery v. Zoning Board · Glorioso Appeal · GRATTON v. CONTE
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What is most determinative is whether the parcel in question is being singled out for treatment unjustifiably differing from that of similar surrounding land, thereby creating an ‘island’ having no relevant differences from its neighbors.” Id. at 210 , 210 A.2d at 277 . 14”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Porter Appeal · In re Benech“[a] singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellees’ argument that the re-zoning was proper because the parcel is situated in an area of mixed commercial and residential uses is not persuasive. The area in which the subject premises is located is zoned residential. It is true that, witbin the confines of this large residential zone, certain commercial uses exist. All such commercial establishments exist, however, as non-conforming uses and should such uses cease, the properties could be utilized only for residential purposes. The amendatory ordinance creates a commercially zoned island in a residentially zoned sea and, unless a proper basis appears for such special treatment, can not. be sustained. (Citation omitted.) (Cm- ■ phasis in .original.)”
2 later decisions 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.