Cole v. Carmell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e feel the intent of the statute was to limit the liability of hotels, etc., for goods deposited for safekeeping when their value could not be ascertained without some disclosure from the tenant, [citation omitted] If such disclosures were not required, the hotel, motel, boarding house, apartment, etc., managements would have no way to ascertain the value of goods deposited with them that were subsequently lost or stolen. (Emphasis added). Conversely, we do not feel the legislature intended to limit the liability of a trailer court operator for his negligent act in releasing to another control over a trailer located on the premises, the value of which is self-evident_ In such circumstances the trailer court operator would have no control over the interior of a trailer, such as would the manager of a hotel, motel, or boarding house over the interior of their lodging facilities. The facts presented we conclude rendered inapplicable the limited liability provisions of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 575 So. 2d 723 - Howard Johnson Co. v. Fair