Gannett v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1993
1 federal appellate · 11 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 Brite, Et Vir v. Orange Belt Securities Co. · R. H. Gore v. General Properties Corporation · Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Harrison · Barrs v. State Ex Rel. Britt · Director General of Railroads v. Wilford
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Regardless of what statement of damages is made in the ad damnum clause of a complaint, such statement does not determine the jurisdiction of the court if it clearly appears that the real demand or value of the property is otherwise than stated and the ad dam-num exceeds the real demand.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““To begin with, it must be emphasized that the claim is not one involving the title to land so as to fall automatically within the jurisdiction of the circuit court under the constitutional provision. In Barrs v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 75 , 116 So. 28, 29 , the Supreme Court said: “ ‘A suit is one “involving the title to real estate” only where the necessary result of the decree or judgment is that one party gains or the other loses an interest in the real estate, or where the title is so put in issue by the pleadings that the decision of the case necessarily involves the judicial determination of such rights.’ “The complaint here does not assert a claim for the adjudication of the rights of parties to the real estate itself. Even though the condition of the title or record affects the right of recovery and, as a consequence, upon such condition of title would depend necessary proof incident to a proper judgment, neither the record of the title nor its status would he involved or affected by the result of the litigation. Rather, the action is upon an alleged breach of warranties in a deed, the title to the land being only incidental to the asserted claim. Barrs v. State, supra; see also Annotation, 115 A.L.R. at page 535.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision 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.