Thomas v. Cilbe, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2012
23 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 Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark · Brindley v. Meara · Henry v. Wilson · Catherwood v. Morgan · 124 Cal. App. 263 - Tolle v. Struve
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is now firmly established beyond peradventure of doubt that the supplemental relief contemplated by the statutes is not limited to further declaratory relief, and such further relief may include an assessment of damages or other coercive relief which may be obtained by a petition in the same action and in the same court in which the declaratory relief was granted. The supplemental relief may be any relief necessary to make effective the declaratory judgment, even though it consists in the granting of a money judgment in the case, after the rendition of the declaratory decree. It would seem that the sounder rule is that the supplemental or additional relief may be granted in the same action, or cause, and that the court, upon a sufficient pleading having been filed therefor, so long as the court avoids rendering a judgment deciding merely a moot, fictitious, or colorable question, it may grant any relief, whether declaratory or executory, to carry into effect its declaratory order, judgment or decree .... ... It would be unreasonable to hold that a court had jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, but the successful party had no remedy to enforce such rights after they had been determined....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘This is somewhat in line with a principle announced in Theo. Hirsch Co. v. Scott, supra [ 87 Fla. 336 , 100 So. 157 ], to the effect that: “An appeal may be taken upon matters arising after a final appealable judgment or decree which require the judicial action of the court in relation to the rights litigated in the main suit making necessary a substantive and important order or decree, when such order or decree partakes of the nature of a final decision of those rights.” ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Supplemental relief. — Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted when necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by motion to the court having jurisdiction to grant relief. If the application is sufficient, the court shall require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment to show cause on reasonable notice, why further relief should not be granted forthwith.””
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.