Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 Fla. 103 - Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie

Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
July 1986
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1986

14 state decisions

60193919401950196019701980decided

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 Blocker v. Blocker · State ex rel. Stillman v. Merritt · Barnes v. Willis · Hamilton Marion Mortg. Co. v. Flowers · Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Mahlstedt

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

  1. ““Bills of review and original bills in the nature of bills of review are controlled largely by the same general principles. See Andrew v. Hecker, 132 Fla. 759 , 182 So. 251 . Bills of review are required to be filed within the six months’ period allowed by the statute in which to take appeals and may be maintained because of matters discovered after entry of final decree and were not available for presentation to the. court prior to the decree. See Shaw v. Hamm, 133 Fla. 722 , 183 So. 19 . Original bills in the nature of bills of review brought for the purpose of impeaching a final decree are addressed largely to the sound discretion of the court and can be permitted or allowed without leave of the court. It is usually considered as a new suit and its objective is to impeach a final decree obtained by fraud or some other equitable reason. See Miami Bank & Tr. Co. v. Mahlstedt, 107 Fla. 282 , 144 So. 659 ; Hamilton v. Flowers, 134 Fla. 328 , 183 So. 811 ; Gamble v. Gamble Holding Co., 120 Fla. 340 , 162 So. 886 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.