Ochoa v. Koppel’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 750 So. 2d 1 - Hayes v. State · Rollins v. Pizzarelli · 629 So. 2d 1036 - Schmidt v. Fortner · 932 So. 2d 1086 - Kephart v. Hadi · 601 So. 2d 538 - Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On December 9, 2011, Ms. Ochoa was injured in a crash with a car driven by Ms. Koppel. In April 2013, she sued Ms. Koppel, alleging negligence and seeking damages to compensate her for her injuries. On September 3, 2013, Ms. Ochoa served Ms. Koppel with a proposal for settlement pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442. The proposal offered to dismiss the action with prejudice in exchange for a lump-sum payment by Ms. Koppel of $100,000. Rule 1.442(f)(1) provides that a proposal for settlement is "deemed rejected" if not accepted within thirty days after service of the proposal, and Ms. Ochoa's proposal stated that it would be withdrawn if not accepted within that time. On the same day she served the proposal, Ms. Ochoa filed a notice that the case was ready for trial. On October 2, 2013-one day before the thirty-day period to accept the settlement proposal expired-Ms. Koppel filed a motion seeking to enlarge the time in which to respond to the proposal. The motion cited Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090, which governs enlargements of time, and alleged that Ms. Koppel had not had sufficient time to evaluate the proposal because (1) she had recently received through discovery a new MRI report bearing on Ms. Ochoa's alleged injuries and (2) the case remained "in its infancy" and Ms. Ochoa's deposition had not been taken. Ms. Ochoa later filed a notice setting a hearing on the motion for December 2, 2013. Although we do not have a transcript of the hearing, the parties agre”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“unambiguous in that neither contains language that could in any way be construed as providing that the time to accept a proposal for settlement is tolled when a motion to enlarge the time to do so is filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“grants a party a de facto enlargement of time-without the judicial supervision, exercise of discretion, and substantive showings rule 1.090 requires-until the motion is decided.”
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.