440 Pa. Super. 31 - Perrige v. Horning’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2015
2 federal appellate · 21 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 Styer v. Hugo · Kremer v. Grant · Johnson v. COM., PA. BD. OF PROB. & PAR. · ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. Gaster · Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ljandowners properly have invoked our courts’ equity jurisdiction to review such matters in the past. In Ballard v. Heppe, 403 Pa.Super. 441 , 589 A.2d 266 (1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 630 , 600 A.2d 950 (1991), for example, this court held that landowners could enforce by injunction certain unambiguous notes in a subdivision plan relating to future lot sizes. We also have decided that an injunction should issue to protect lot owners who were granted “protective covenants” to preserve the residential nature of a development. Gey v. Beck, 390 Pa.Super. 317 , 568 A.2d 672 (1990). See also Doylestown Township v. Teeling, 160 Pa.Commw. 397, 635 A.2d 657, 661 (1993) (conditions attached to subdivision plan as part of approval process constitute restrictive covenants running with the land and may be enforced in equity by owner of other lots in subdivision).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is clear that a deed for land may incorporate by reference the conditions of a subdivision plan, and the plan conditions then become enforceable in equity by the interested deed holder. Reed v. Reese, 473 Pa. 321 , 374 A.2d 665 (1976) (plaintiff landowner was entitled to specific relief or damages in action against later purchasers who sought to violate parkland restriction in subdivision plan).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“2. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS 3 + RESIDUE ... LOT NO. 4 (RESIDUE) WILL BE USE[D] FOR AGRICULTURAL USE ONLY. [[Image here]] 9. THE RESIDUE LOT WAS AND WILL REMAIN AGRICULTURAL USE, NO WETLAND DELINEATION IS REQUIRED.”
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.