Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Ariz. App. 162 - Decker v. Hendricks

7 Ariz. App. 162 - Decker v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2010

8 state decisions

40196819701980199020002010decided

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 Decker v. Hendricks · Continental Oil Co. v. Fennemore · 4 Ariz. App. 517 - R & R REALTY CO. v. Weinstein · 4 Ariz. App. 490 - Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. · 6 Ariz. App. 429 - Kaufman v. City of Tucson

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

  1. “We adhere to the doctrine that the lot of appellant cannot be considered separate and apart from its relation to the entire restricted addition. Though there may be a fringe of property all around the borders of a restricted addition which would be more valuable for business than for residential purposes, this fact alone is not sufficient to warrant the breach of restrictions by these owners.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[S]ince the changed conditions have occurred outside the restricted district, we must look to the effect that the changes have upon the entire district to determine if the purposes have been frustrated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[E]quity will enforce the terms of restrictive covenants unless the changes in the surrounding areas are so fundamental or radical as to defeat or frustrate the original 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.