235 So. 2d 537 - Frank v. Amara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the order did not stop there; it also denied relief under Rule 1.540(b). Since relief under the latter rule may be sought within a reasonable time not to exceed one year, it cannot be said that appellant’s motion in that respect was not timely nor that review of an order granting or denying relief under Rule 1.540 may not be reviewed on appeal. See Odum v. Morningstar, 158 So.2d 776 (Fla. App. 1963), and State ex rel. Avery v. Williams, 222 So.2d 477 (Fla. App. 1969), in which the court distinguished motions for relief pursuant to Rule 1.540 and motions attempting reinstatement of a cause dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 1.420(e).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. Pennsylvania Threshermen's Insurance

2. “. . . relief under Rule 1.540(b), F.R.C.P., by which appellant sought to be relieved from the final order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute on the ground that the said dismissal order was entered as a result of excusable neglect. . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. Pennsylvania Threshermen's Insurance

3. “However, to the extent that the notice of appeal seeks review of the lower court’s order denying relief under Rule 1.540(b), appellees’ motion to dismiss is denied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. Pennsylvania Threshermen's Insurance