Redfearn v. Creppel’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 86 Md. App. 745 - County Commissioners of Carroll County v. Zent (1991), City of New Orleans v. Elms (1990)
32 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · County of San Diego v. McClurken · Beerwort v. Zoning Board of Appeals · Pratt v. Building Inspector of Gloucester · Wentworth Hotel, Inc. v. Town of New Castle
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“permitted continuation of a nonconforming use is designed to avoid the hardship, injustice and doubtful constitutionality of compelling the immediate removal of objectionable buildings and uses already in the area.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A building or land which does not conform to the use regulations of the district in which it is located (non-conforming by use), shall not be extended or enlarged by the attachment of signs to the building, or by the placement of signs or display materials on land outside of the building, or by the attachment of racks, balconies, or other projections from the building, or in any other manner, except when required by law or ordinance. Buildings which are non-conforming only as to height, floor area ration, yard areas, lot area per family, or parking may be maintained, structurally altered or increased in cubical content, provided such alteration or increase in cubical content shall not further increase the extent of the non-conformance or permit an increase in the number of dwelling units. Limitations as to cubical content and increase in floor area shall not apply to existing industrial uses in the Vieux Carre.””
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.