Clagg v. Baycliffs Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the grantor of the implied easement had intended to protect the easement holders from the effect of the replat statute, the grantor could have done so by granting an express written easement defining the extent of the rights, by providing for joint ownership of the property over which [the roadway] runs, or by any other legal means of conveyance. The grantor did not do so. Therefore, the implied easements in [the roadway], having no express terms, definitions, or duration, are limited by the application of the law in effect at the time they were created, including the provisions of R.C. 711.24 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harbor Island Assoc. v. Ottawa Regional, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)

2. “[a]n implied easement in a private street, created by reference to a subdivision plat depicting and dedicating the street to the lot owners of a subdivision, is statutorily limited so that an owner of land within the subdivision may unilaterally change the course of the street subject to the requirements set forth in R.C. 711.24.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buchholtz v. Childers, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007)

3. “the court may infer that the creator of the original plat was or should have been aware of the statutes concerning plats and changes to plats and that the implied easement is therefore limited by the platting provisions”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harbor Island Assoc. v. Ottawa Regional, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)