Davis v. Huey’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Riss v. Angel (1997), Esaw v. Friedman (1991)
47 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 Davis v. Huey · Curlee v. Walker · 34 Cal. 2d 442 - Hannula v. Hacienda Homes, Inc. · Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co. · Hooper v. Lottman
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“essential that the party seeking to enforce the restrictions on the use of land establish that the purchaser had notice of the limitations on his title.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“is determined at the date of the inception of the general plan or scheme,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The majority view with respect to covenants requiring submission of plans and prior consent to instruction [sic] is that such clauses, even if vesting the approving authority with broad discretionary powers, are valid and enforceable so long as the authority to consent is exercised reasonably and in good faith.3 Other cases have apparently taken the position that a discretionary approval covenant will not permit the approving authority to impose limitations more restrictive than those specific restrictions affecting the lot owner’s use of the property. Under this view, a restriction requiring approval of plans will not justify the imposition of building design or site requirements which are more onerous than those specifically stipulated by other restrictions of record.4 We find that the better reasoned view is that covenants requiring submission of plans and prior consent before construction are valid insofar as they furnish adequate notice to the property owner of the specific restriction sought to be enforced. * * * * * We hold that as a matter of law Paragraph 8 [titled Architectural Control and Building Plans] failed to provide . . . notice of the . . . restrictions sought to be enforced and therefore the developer’s refusal to approve the plans exceeded the authority granted by the restrictive covenants and was void. 3 See, e.g., Hannula v. Hacienda Homes, Inc., 34 Cal.2d 442 , 211 P.2d 302, 306 (1949); Bersos v. Cape George Colony Club, 10 Wash.App. 969 , 521 P.2d 1217”
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.