State v. Luckie’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably 69 Cal. App. 3d 103 - Douglas v. E. & J. GALLO WINERY (1977), 287 So. 2d 56 - Conklin v. Cohen (1973)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 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 72 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. Florida Power Corp. · Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt · 73 So. 2d 287 - Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree · 124 So. 2d 36 - Cromer v. Thomas · 142 So. 2d 74 - West v. Sampson
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... In West v. Sampson our Supreme Court indicated, if it did not specifically so hold, that the type of contractual obligation by which one must be bound in order to be held a contractor within the meaning of the statute is the conventional type of contract entered into between a general contractor and an owner of property for whose benefit improvements are to be constructed or specified work is to be performed, by which the contractor agrees for a stated consideration to construct an improvement or perform the work in accordance with agreed plans and specifications." State v. Luckie, 145 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n employee of an independent contractor may maintain against an owner an action at law for damages suffered as a result of the latter's negligence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It seems clear from the facts in this case that Auchter occupies the position of primary employer and owner of the land and the improvements sought to be constructed thereon. The fact that it is also a licensed general contractor engaged in the construction industry would appear to be of no importance, and has no controlling effect upon the interpretation to be placed upon the pertinent statute under consideration. In order for Auchter to be considered a contractor within the meaning and intent of the statute it would have to be bound by a contractual obligation to build for some third party the improvements which were in the process of construction at the time Swain was injured. By the same token Florida Steel could not be held to be a subcontractor within the meaning of the statute unless it can be established that Auchter passed on to Florida Steel an obligation under a contract for which Auchter was primarily obligated.”
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.