Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 So. 2d 53 - Harrison v. McCourtney

148 So. 2d 53 - Harrison v. McCourtney’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
February 1996
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably Alex D. HENDERSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAYDEN, STONE INCORPORATED, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees (1972), 208 So. 2d 152 - Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co. (1968)

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

1201962197019801990decided

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 126 So. 2d 305 - Emile v. First National Bank of Miami · 122 So. 2d 247 - Popper v. Havana Publications, Inc.

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

  1. ““We review the entry of the summary judgment in the light of the well-established principles of law that summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted only where the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; that if there is an issue of fact, and the slightest doubt remains, summary judgment should not be granted; that the record supporting summary judgment is closely scrutinized and all inferences of fact from the proofs must be drawn against the movant; and that the court should indulge all proper inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was entered.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The defendants’ answer raised the affirmative defense of estoppel. In an action based on § 517.21, Florida Statutes, for the recovery of the amount paid for securities sold in violation of the ‘Blue Sky Laws,’ estoppel may be a defense. Popper v. Havana Publications, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 247 . In the absence of some proof contradicting or denying or in opposition thereto, the mere pleading of this affirmative defense created a genuine issue so as to preclude summary judgment. The movant, plaintiff here, has the burden to show from the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movarit is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The defendants were under no duty to submit evidentiary matter to establish their affirmative defense. * ?}c #”
    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.