Scull v. Eilenberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 54 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The most complete way, of course, is by a reciprocal covenant, whereby the grantor covenants to insert, in apt language, like covenants in all deeds of his remaining lots or lands for the common benefit of all of his grantees and their assigns. Another way is for him to offer his lots for sale, and to sell them, on the representation that all lots will be conveyed subject to like covenants for the common benefit, in which case purchasers with notice or knowledge will be bound by the covenant. But, in the absence of either of these methods (as was the case here), the courts will only spell out such a scheme from a plan of lots and sales therefrom where all the deeds from the common grantor for the lots making up any particular neighborhood group of common benefit therefrom, are made subject to the common covenant. If, under these circumstances, the covenant is omitted from a deed of one lot so located that a violation on that lot of the provisions of the covenant would deprive the other lots of the benefit to be derived by them from the common observance of the restriction, there is, in the absence of knowledge or notice of the scheme on the part of the grantee in the deed for such omitted lot, a failure to make out a neighborhood scheme, at least as to that lot and as to such other lots as would lose the benefit of the scheme if it were violated on the lot not subjected to the covenant.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 N.J. Super. 215 - Houston Petroleum Co. v. AUTOMOTIVE, ETC., ASS'N · 8 N.J. Super. 392 - Frisch v. Rutgers Village

2. “`A general scheme of restrictions to be effective and enforceable must have certain characteristics. It must be universal, that is, the restrictions must apply to all lots of like character brought within the scheme. Unless it be universal it cannot be reciprocal. If it be not reciprocal, then it must as a neighborhood scheme fall, for the theory which sustains a scheme or plan of this character is that the restrictions are a benefit to all. The consideration to each lot owner for the imposition of the restriction upon his lot is that the same restrictions are imposed upon the lots of others similarly situated. If the restrictions upon all lots similarly located are not alike, or some lots are not subject to the restrictions while others are, then a burden would be carried by some owners without a corresponding benefit. The burden follows the benefit, and where there is no benefit there should be no burden. * * *'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 211 N.J. Super. 644 - Blaine v. Ritger · 107 N.J. Eq. 541 - Rhodes v. Elmore Realty Co.

3. “There is no covenant by the common grantor to insert the common covenant in all the deeds, nor is there any proof in the record of any other verbal or written promise or representation so to do.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 N.J. Eq. 316 - McComb v. Hanly