Little v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “(e) Failure to Prosecute. All actions in which it appears on the face of the record that no activity by filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise has occurred for a period of 1 year shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on the motion of any interested person, whether a party to the action or not, after reasonable notice to the parties, unless a stipulation staying the action is approved by the court or a stay order has been filed or a party shows good cause in writing at least 5 days before the hearing on the motion why the action should remain pending. Mere inaction for a period of less than 1 year shall not be sufficient cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co. · 925 So. 2d 468 - Hunnewell v. Palm Beach County

2. ““The cited statute [Sec. 45.19] is obviously intended to promote the expedí- tious disposition of litigation. It contains two basic component elements. It provides for dismissal upon inaction for a year showing a lack of prosecution for that period. It further provides for reinstatement after dismissal ‘upon good cause shown’ by petition filed within one month. In regard to dismissal, the requirements of the statute are mandatory if it is demonstrated to the court that no action towards prosecution has been taken within a year. The trial judge has no discretion in the enforcement of this aspect of the statute. When the essential inaction is established, dismissal necessarily follows. May v. State ex rel. Ervin, Fla., 96 So.2d 126 ; Adams Engineering Co. v. Construction Products Corp., Fla., 156 So.2d 497 .” (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 So. 2d 482 - Newman v. Bennefeld · 925 So. 2d 468 - Hunnewell v. Palm Beach County

3. ““Certainly the standard of ‘good cause’ required for reinstatement under Section 45.19 requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. But this is not an arbitrary or unrestrained discretion. The necessary good cause must appear by the petition for reinstatement, and must be established by evidentiary support. Neither the fact that a case is ready to be set for trial, the fact that the dismissal will cause severe hardship, nor the fact that the parties have unsuccessfully negotiated for settlement, constitutes good cause for reinstatement within the intendment of F.S.1963, Section 45.-19(1), F.S.A.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Langrall, Muir & Noppinger v. Gladding · Lindquist v. Williams