Moorman v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1992
11 state decisions
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 Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines · Cain v. Carllee · Redstone v. Redstone Lumber Supply Co. · Stewart v. Stewart
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Any uncertainty that exists is completely dispelled when the legislative history of the 1955 act is examined. As originally introduced in the legislature, the bill which became Act 352 applied to city offices as well as to those of the State, a county, or district. Before its final passage the bill was amended to delete the word ‘city’ wherever it appeared. House Journal, 1955, p. 394. We certainly should not read into the act by implication a provision that the legislature itself expressly eliminated. Mayo v. American Agricultural Chem. Co., 101 Fla. 279 , 133 So. 885 ; Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines, 125 Tex. 154 , 81 S. W. 2d 482 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Hickey
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.