Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 So. 2d 903 - Larsen v. Allocca

187 So. 2d 903 - Larsen v. Allocca’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2007

9 state decisions

4019661970198019902000decided

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 Carlson v. Becker · Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation · Scheneman v. Barnett · Kissling v. McCarthy · 152 So. 2d 524 - Colmes v. Hoco, Inc. of Dade County

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 discretion to grant (or deny) deficiency decrees in mortgage foreclosure suits, provided for by statute (Sec. 702.06, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.), is not absolute and unbridled but is a `sound judicial discretion', Carlson v. Becker, Fla. 1950, 45 So.2d 116 . The exercise of such discretion in denial of a deficiency decree must be supported by disclosed equitable considerations which constitute sound and sufficient reasons for such action. Scheneman v. Barnett, Fla. 1951, 53 So.2d 641 ; Kissling v. McCarthy, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So.2d 434 ; Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 523 ; Colmes v. Hoco, Inc. of Dade County, Fla.App. 1963, 152 So.2d 524 . Therefore, the determinative question here is whether the chancellor abused discretion in denying the mortgagees' motion for a deficiency decree.”
    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.