Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 SO2D 792 - Hott v. Funk

Hott v. Funk’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 1995
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1995

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

701964197019801990decided

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 157 So. 2d 427 - Greyhound Corporation v. Ford · 136 So. 2d 376 - Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Company

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

  1. ““The plaintiff contends that the collision occurred under circumstances giving rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant and that her explanation of it was legally insufficient to rebut this presumption. “The case before us is a close one, as the trial judge recognized. While there are numerous circumstances from which the jury might reasonably have found that the collision was caused by the defendant’s negligence, we do not agree that this was the only reasonable conclusion. The first vehicle came to a stop at an unexpected place. While the driver of the English Ford testified that the first five cars came to ‘normal’ stops, he also testified that ‘it happened quickly.’ Considering the approximate speeds and distances which the parties described and the number of vehicles involved, the jury might reasonably have found that the defendant was confronted with an unexpected stop that was more sudden than described by this witness at a point some distance from the intersection. In short, the evidence gave rise to a. variety of permissible inferences and presented an issue of negligence for determination by a jury. * * * Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motions properly were denied.””
    2 later decisions 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.