227 So. 2d 489 - State v. Eitel’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2004
1 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1381 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 23 U.S.C. § 401 (Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1988)
Relies on Bunn v. North Carolina · People v. . Havnor · Everhardt v. City of New Orleans · 42 Wis. 2d 42 - Bisenius v. Karns · State Ex Rel. Colvin v. Lombardi
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[D]eath has come with increasing and alarming frequency to motor-cyclists in recent years. Seventy-seven per cent of the motorcycle accident deaths studied by a California physician were caused by craniocerebral injury with no potentially fatal trauma to other parts of the body. A New York legislative report, citing the rapid increase in number of motorcycle accidents, stated that 89.2% of these accidents resulted in injury or death and that almost all fatalities involved head injuries, most of which could have been avoided or ameliorated by the use of a proper helmet. An orthopedic surgeon testified in this case that he had cared for six persons injured in motorcycle crashes while wearing protective helmets. None had severe head injury. The inconvenience to the person will vary, but the danger is real and the protection reasonably adapted to its avoidance." Id. at 491 (footnotes omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The statute requires that the protective equipment meet the standards of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Standard 4.4.3, promulgated after the enactment but before the effective date of the Florida act, leaves the specifications to the state. The Department of Public Safety adopted Chapter 295G of its Rules months before these charges were brought. We find no unconstitutional delegation of power, nor any vagueness here. Indeed, we think it wise for the Legislature, which stated its purpose with sufficient clarity, to leave to administrative officials the specification of impact strength and the like." [4]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is to the interest of the state to have strong, robust, healthy citizens, capable of self-support, of bearing arms, and of adding to the resources of the country.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Borras v. State
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.