Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 SO2D 701 - North v. Culmer

North v. Culmer’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
5
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2013

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

90196719701980199020002010decided

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 McLearn v. Hill · Carruth v. Fritch · 156 Cal. App. 2d 382 - Regus v. Schartkoff · Marion Mortgate Co. v. Grennan · MacKeen v. Kasinskas

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

  1. “'[oine cannot justly or equitably lull an adversary into a false sense of security thereby subjecting his claim to the bar of limitations, and then be heard to plead that very delay as a defense to the action when brought.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 23 Utah 2d 22 - Rice v. Granite School District · ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C.
  2. “... actual fraud in the technical sense, bad faith, or an intent to mislead or deceive is not essential to create such an estoppel. It is enough if the conduct claimed as a basis for the estoppel is done with actual or virtual intent that the other party should act upon it. At 704.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 361 So. 2d 156 - Rinker Materials Corp. v. PALMER FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO.
  3. “[f]rom the earliest cases the Florida Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of estoppel as a result of silence when common honesty and fair dealing demanded that a person estopped should have spoken.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Hensel v. Aurilio

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.