Faulkner v. Keene’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably National Transportation Co., Inc. v. Toquet (1937), Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Commission (1972)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner · Fidelity Nat Bank Trust Co of Kansas City v. Swope · Duval v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The objections to it are the product of undue conservatism. ‘We have canonized the ancient tradition of a cause of action, in all its original crudeness, and have made it the condition and the measure of judicial action. We have failed utterly to see the enormous and far-reaching possibilities in preventive relief, — prevention not merely of threatened wrongs but prevention of uncertainty and misunderstanding in the assertion of rights. Yet here is an effective, workable system, tried out under conditions identical with those in our own country, which makes an advance over previous doctrines comparable to the great reform which equity made over the harsh rules of the common law. Its use would entail no reconstruction of our judicial machinery, no readjustment of other elements in our remedial system. Its theory and operation are perfectly simple.’ 16 Mich. Law Rev. 69, 89. “Statutes designed to confer such jurisdiction should be construed so as to effectuate their evident purpose. Questions will undoubtedly arise as border line cases are presented. It is sufficient for the disposition of the present controversy to decide that the issue as to the application of the statute and ordinance involved is a proper matter to be determined in such a proceeding, that the situation of the plaintiffs entitles them to invoke the judgment of the court, and that the claims of the defendant are adverse in a sense covered by the act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus it has been held that the mere enactment of a statute or ordinance limiting the use of property, without any attempt to apply it to the complaining party, made cause for injunctive relief.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.