Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 N.M. 302 - Chuba v. Glasgow

Chuba v. Glasgow’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
5
states following
December 1990
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1990 · most notably Murphey v. Gray (1958), Montoya v. Barreras (1970)

24 state decisions

10019561960197019801990decided

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 Barton v. Moline Properties, Inc. · 111 Ind. App. 212 - Sorrentino v. Cunningham · Swain v. Maxwell · Ault v. Shipley · Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Drauver

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"* * * [W]here changes in the surrounding area are so radical as to frustrate the original purposes and intention of the parties to such restrictions, that they can no longer be carried out, and this without fault or neglect of him who seeks to be relieved by a court of equity from their observance, such restrictive covenants should be extinguished. In such instance the doctrine, as expressed in the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, would apply; * * *."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “* * The area to the north, east, and south is unrestricted and businesses of various kinds have been established thereon; but these changes, outside the restricted area, do not defeat the purposes of the restrictions. * * *””
    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.