Hoff v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2015
12 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 Cornwell v. Sullivan · 68 So. 2d 815 - Robinson v. Feltus · 359 So. 2d 2 - Monell v. Golfview Road Ass'n
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language of the deed is not ambiguous, and we are unable to read it as merely giving a right to travel somewhere over the twenty foot area. It is clear from the wording of the deed that the whole strip was set aside for ingress and egress____ The servient owner has no right to place permanent obstructions in the described easement area that would prevent the dominant tenement owner from free passing over any part of the ease-ment____ Considerations about what may be reasonably necessary for the dominant tenement owner’s use or needs is not appropriate or relevant in this case. (Emphasis in original.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A private roadway over, across, and upon a strip of land 20 feet wide along the West side of the lands of the grantors herein, which lies South of the land hereby conveyed, from the South line of the property above-described to State Road 40, such strip of land to be used in common for the right of ingress and egress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]hus, the servient owner had no right to place permanent obstructions in the described easement area that would prevent the dominant tenement owner from freely passing over any part of the easement. Considerations about what might have been reasonably necessary for the dominant tenement owners’ use or needs were simply not appropriate or relevant.”
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.