150 So. 2d 263 - White v. Posick’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2008
7 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 Albritton v. Scott · Cowdery v. Herring · Smith v. Guckenheimer & Sons · 82 So. 2d 510 - Olesky v. Nicholas · 109 So. 2d 34 - Marsh v. Hartley
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.
““ ‘We think the chancellor correctly held that the case at bar was ruled by Cowdery v. Herring, supra [ 106 Fla. 567 , 143 So. 433 , 144 So. 348 ]. Since the homestead was within the limits of a city or town, the real point with which we are confronted is whether or not the improvements on the land in question amounted to more than the “residence and business house of the owner” ? What constitutes the “residence and business house” of the owner is not defined in the Constitution but in Cowdery v. Herring, supra [ 106 Fla. 567 , 143 So. 435 ], we said that the intent of this language was to “preserve as exempt a reasonable portion of the homestead improvements, in addition to the owner’s actual residence, when it appears that the improvements concerned are being used as a means of making the owner’s livelihood.” One’s business, trade, craft or other means by which he made his living might have much to do with determining what constituted his “residence and business house.” ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Heil Co. v. Lavieri““Exemption of homestead; extent. A homestead to the extent of one hundred and sixty acres of land, or the half of one acre within the limits of any incorporated city or town, owned by the head of a family residing in this State, together with one thousand dollars worth of personal property, and the improvements on the real estate, shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and the real estate shall not be alienable without the joint consent of husband and wife, when that relation exists. But no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes or assessments, or for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said property, or for the erection or repair of improvements on the real estate exempted, or for house, field or other labor performed on the same. * * * a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Constitution makes no reference to lot lines nor does it require that the homestead residence and related appurtenances be located on only one lot. The only explicit limitation in this respect is that the exempt area may not constitute more than one-half acre within the limits of any incorporated city or town. Construing both the limitations and the scope of the Constitution liberally in the interest of the family home ... we affirm the finding of the trial court [granting the debtor an exemption on both lots].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Dudeney
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.