207 So. 2d 198 - Hardy v. Bye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Joseph Hardy, Individually, and against defendants, Robert Melich, Merlyn E. Sentilles, Sr., and The Travelers Indemnity Co., jointly and in solido in the full sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Four and 50/100 ($1,694.50) Dollars, plus legal interest from date of judicial demand and for all costs. “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Joseph Hardy, as the Natural Tutor of the Minor Child, David Hardy, and against defendants, Robert Melich, Merlyn E. Sen-tilles, Sr., and the Travelers Indemnity Co., jointly and in solido in the full sum of Four Thousand and No/100 ($4,000.-00) Dollars plus legal interest from date of judicial demand and for all costs. “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of defendants, Julia B. Bye, Albert A. Bye and Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, and against the plaintiff, Joseph Hardy, rejecting his demands at his costs. “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the expert testimony fees of Doctors Blaise Salatich, Richard W. Vincent, and Carl N. Wall be set at One Hundred and No/100 ($100.00) Dollars, said fees to be paid by defendants, Robert Melich, Mer-lyn E. Sentilles, Sr., and the Travelers Indemnity Company.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 280 So. 2d 663 - Hardy v. Bye

2. “‘We find no causal link between any alleged negligence or breach of duty on the part of the ice-cream vendor in those circumstances. The attractive nuisance, if the ice-cream truck should be called that, is not only attractive to children who are wont to be indiscreet when the promise of ice-cream is near, but should also indicate to motorists and those other persons responsible for the safety of children, that the children under their care may be exposed to certain danger when they congregate at vending trucks, and they too should take necessary precautions. Therefore, we find the doctrine of attractive nuisance inapplicable to the vendor in a residential neighborhood, and no duty towards the children has been breached by him where there is no evidence of an unreasonable risk of harm which by itself could be considered negligent conduct.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 234 So. 2d 857 - Celestin v. Bourg

3. “We likewise affirm the decision of the district court here and hold in accord with the numerous cases that state the motorist is to be held to a high degree of care when the young children are known to be near the road-side. The motorist is not, however, the insurer of the safety of all children who suddenly dart or run into his path from a concealed position so that the motorist who is driving with all due precaution would be unable to avoid striking the child.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 234 So. 2d 857 - Celestin v. Bourg