44 N.J. Super. 380 - Olson v. Jantausch’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Homann v. Torchinsky (1997), 87 N.J. Super. 177 - Urban Farms, Inc. v. Seel (1965)
27 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 41 N.J. Super. 89 - Jantausch v. Borough of Verona · De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co. · Scull v. Eilenberg · 46 N.J. Eq. 386 - Coudert v. Sayre · Bowen v. Smith
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) universal, the restrictions applying to all lots of like character brought within the scheme; (b) reciprocal, the restrictions constituting a benefit to all lots involved which are subject to the burden imposed; (c) reasonably uniform as to the restrictions imposed; they need not be identical but any variations must be such as not to create an inequitable burden or benefit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e would assume that `assign,' in this context, `comprehends all those who take either immediately or remotely from or under the assignor, whether by conveyance, devise, descent or act of law.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine now in force on this subject I understand to be this: that when it appears by the true construction of the terms of a grant that it was the well-understood purpose of the parties to create or reserve a right, in the nature of a servitude or easement, in the property granted, for the benefit of other land owned by the grantor, no matter in what form such purpose may be expressed, whether it be in the form of a condition or covenant, or reservation or exception, such right, if not against public policy, will be held to be appurtenant to the land of the grantor, and binding on that conveyed to the grantee, and the right and burden thus created and imposed will pass with the lands to all subsequent grantees; and any grantee of the land to which such right is appurtenant acquires by his grant, a right to have the servitude or easement, or `right of amenity,' as it is sometimes called, protected in equity, notwithstanding that his right may not rest on a covenant which, as a matter of law, runs with the title to his land, and notwithstanding that it may also be true that he may not be able to maintain an action at law for the vindication of his right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.