Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1982
9 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 Peery v. Mershon · Weber v. Porco · 77 So. 2d 468 - May v. Palm Beach Chemical Company · Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Insurance Co. · Dosher v. Hunt
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The appellants were defendants in the trial court where the plaintiff-appellee Rachel Medcalfe received a verdict and judgment. The action arose out of an automobile accident in which Mrs. Medcalfe was injured. She alleged liability in the defendants because of their ownership of the car in which she was riding. The negligence alleged was that of Henry Medcalfe, the plaintiff's husband. "Mr. and Mrs. Medcalfe were hired by Mr. and Mrs. Soper as domestic servants. Mrs. Medcalfe was a cook and Mr. Medcalfe was a chauffeur and handy man. Both the couples lived in Montreal, Canada but the Sopers maintained a winter home in Delray Beach, Florida. In 1957, although the Medcalfes owned an automobile, they stored it in Montreal and by arrangement with their employers drove their employers' car to Florida. An understanding had been reached whereby the employees would have the right to use a second car owned by the Sopers for personal transportation during the stay in Florida. "Mr. Soper died in February of 1958 but in December of that year the same arrangement as to the automobiles was made by Mrs. Soper with Mr. and Mrs. Medcalfe. "On the day that the accident occurred, the Medcalfes were given a Sunday off and were using the second car with Mrs. Soper's consent. They were going fishing. "Mrs. Medcalfe sued Mr. Soper and a corporation, Raydel, Ltd., for her injuries. The automobile was owned by the corporate defendant, which is a family corporation controlled by the individual defen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"* * * we are directed to the testimony of * * * a psychiatrist and neurologist, who testified for the plaintiff at the trial on damages. It is contended that because this physician's testimony was based on a statement of medical history given him by the plaintiff, it was error to overrule defendants' objections thereto. See Marshall v. Papineau, Fla. App. 1961, 132 So.2d 786 ; and cases cited in 65 A.L.R. 1217 , 51 A.L.R.2d 1051 . We hold the objection to have been properly overruled because the witness was not called upon to testify only from a medical history given to him by the patient [, rather, he] was called upon to testify as to the findings from his examination as well."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We have already determined that the record supports without issue the fact that Mrs. Medcalfe received the enjoyment of the transportation afforded by the car as a part of her compensation for her job * * *.”
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.