241 So. 2d 694 - Hardison v. Threets’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The guidelines and limitations upon appellate review in this area are wellknown. See 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 96 et seq. Suffice it to say that the jury decision here in nowise shocks my judicial conscience and I fail to see a demonstration of error of any calibre or kind, or any legal basis for substituting my views as to the amount of damages. It is this writer's philosophy and understanding of the law that in such case the weighing of the evidence and the consideration of the nuances arising therefrom should be more comfortably and properly left in the hands of the jury, rather than in the hands of the appellate judges. "Six jurors heard this case and were properly instructed as to the law. They decided that $15,435.00 was a proper award. The presiding trial judge heard the evidence and agreed with the jury when he rejected the defendant's arguments and requests for a new trial and remittitur. Two judges of this court assayed the evidence from the printed record, then decided that $5,435.00 was a proper award. Being unable and unwilling to so definitively re-try this case, I do respectfully and reluctantly separate from the views of my esteemed brethren here and align with the jurors and the trial judge. "I would affirm the award of damages upon authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Stewart, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 880 ; Holland Paving Co. v. Dann, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 849 ; Atlas Properties, Inc. v. Didich, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 278 and Laskey v. Smith”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 255 So. 2d 267 - Threets v. Hardison

2. “. . the present value of the prospective earnings and savings which the evidence indicates the decedent could reasonably have been expected to have accumulated during his life expectancy after becoming of age and to have left to his heirs or beneficiaries at his death . . . . That which may be considered in measuring the recovery includes evidence of age, probable duration of life, habits of industry, means, business, earnings, health, skill, and reasonable future expectations. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Robinson