Walter Phillips, Jr. v. Stewart B. Iglehart’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 737 · 1977
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 333 So. 2d 25 - Nardone v. Reynolds · Mrs. John W. Allen v. The Estate of Charles Francis Carman, Mrs. Sylvia Carman · Barnes v. Atlantic & Pacific Life Insurance Co. of America · Nardone v. Reynolds · In Re Richard Lee McClintock Bankrupt. Edward W. Szczepanski, Jr., Trustee-Appellant v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, in Re Paul Jean Portman, Jr., Bankrupt. Edward W. Szczepanski, Jr. v. Ford Motor Credit Company
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.
“"Witnesseth that the said parties of the first part (Defendants) for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, to them in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, transferred, and by these presents, do grant, bargain, sell and transfer unto the said party of the second part and his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain tract of land lying and being in the county of St. Lucie and the State of Florida more particularly described as follows: (Legal Description omitted) This conveyance is made subject to the following restrictive covenant which is construed as a covenant running with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the grantors, their heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and shall be applicable and be binding upon the grantee, and his heirs, legal representatives and assigns: 1. The grantee does hereby covenant that in the event the grantee herein desires to sell the property conveyed by this deed, together with improvements, if any, then said property shall be offered for sale to the grantors at a price, which shall equal the amount paid by the grantee to the grantors for said property plus the cost of all permanent improvements placed on said property by the grantee and the grantors shall have sixty (60) days within which to exercise their option to repurchase said property; and should the grantors fail or refuse within sixty days after receipt of written ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Statement of Facts: This case for declaratory relief involves a repurchase option in a deed. Plaintiff maintains that the repurchase option should be declared invalid, void and of no force and effect. Defendants say that it is valid and should be upheld, but if it is held invalid, the Defendants maintain that the Court should rescind the deed and restore the parties to the status quo prior to the execution of the deed. By deed dated March 12, 1959, filed June 24, 1959, recorded in Deed Book 249, Page 246, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida, Defendants conveyed to Plaintiff's now deceased father 306.35 plus or minus (+ -) acres of land subject to a repurchase option specifically set forth in the deed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“disclaim(ed) any intention or desire to restrict the Florida Supreme Court, in its reply, to the precise form or scope of the questions presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. Iglehart
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.