65 So. 2d 732 - Sinclair Refining Co. v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “[T]he public policy of this state and this nation favors the fullest liberty of contract and the widest possible latitude in the disposition of one's property, so long as no disposition is sought to be made contrary to public policy or express law and so long as the restraint is within reasonable bounds.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grentner v. Le Jeune Auto Theater, Inc. · 119 So. 2d 795 - Hevia v. Palm Terrace Fruit Co.

2. “"The only substantive question presented for determination is whether or not the use by appellant of his premises in the manner described is a violation of the restrictive covenants hereinabove quoted "The covenants here under consideration relate to the use to be made of the property rather than to the character of the building to be erected upon it. * * * * * * "Covenants restraining the free use of real property, although not favored, will nevertheless be enforced by courts of equity where the intention of the parties is clear in their creation, and the restrictions and limitations are confined to a lawful purpose and within reasonable bounds, unless the rights created by such covenants have been relinquished or otherwise lost. Such covenants are strictly construed in favor of the free and unrestricted use of real property, but effect will be given to the manifest intention of the parties as shown by the language of the entire instrument in which the covenant appears, when considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Due regard must be had for the purpose contemplated by the parties to the covenant, and words used must be given their ordinary, obvious meaning as commonly understood at the time the instrument containing the covenants was executed, * * *. * * * * * * "The expressed intent of the parties is the controlling factor. Intent unexpressed will be unavailing, and substantial ambiguity or doubt must be resolved against the person claim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hagan v. Sabal Palms, Inc.

3. “The intention of the parties to [a] covenant, construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, as expressed in the whole of the instrument containing the covenant, not the opinion of witnesses as to whether a different use of premises conveyed would be helpful or detrimental, is controlling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 642 So. 2d 551 - Metropolitan Dade County v. Sunlink Corp.