Lake v. Lake’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 405 So. 2d 418 - Jollie v. State (1981), 385 So. 2d 1356 - Jenkins v. State (1980)
34 state decisions
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 101 So. 2d 808 - Ansin v. Thurston · Dye v. Dolbeck · 100 So. 2d 420 - Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Court will examine the opinion upon which the district court of appeal decision is based, and if the opinion, on its face, shows the probable existence of a direct conflict between the two decisions, on the same point of law, the writ of certiorari may issue and, after study, may be discharged, or the decision of the district court of appeal may be quashed or modified to the end that any direct conflict between the decisions on the same point of law may be reconciled." (Emphasis in original)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“a conflict had arisen with resulting injustice to the immediate litigant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Reverting now to the provision relevant to the present petition we say that it, too, is in the category. To remain stable, the law administered by the Supreme Court and the district courts of appeal must be harmonious and uniform. Were there not a central authority to keep it so it could happen that a district court of appeal would decide a given question of law one way and another district court of appeal another way, or one of them contrary to a former decision of the Supreme Court, through oversight or inadvertence, resulting in obvious confusion. To forestall any uncertainty that might derive from such situations, however infrequent, the provision was included in the amendment."”
2 later decisions 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.