279 So. 2d 44 - Lindquist v. Covert’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 1998
19 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 66 So. 2d 684 - Higbee v. Dorigo · 160 So. 2d 132 - Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc. · Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a starting point in our discussion, we would concede that the two verdicts were inconsistent with one another. Obviously the verdict for the plaintiff against Lindquist and Smith necessarily implies that Lindquist was negligent in driving his vehicle into the plaintiff's vehicle. The verdict in favor of Lindquist, on the other hand, necessarily finds that Lindquist was not negligent in striking the plaintiff's vehicle which collision was the only collision in which Lindquist was involved and thus the only source of his injury. However, when these verdicts were read, neither Lindquist nor Smith raised an objection to their inconsistency. This problem was not called to the court's attention until the motions for new trials were filed. Certainly this court does not approve the creation of technical barriers to appellate review. At the same time, however, there would be very little fairness in reversing the plaintiff's judgment because of an inconsistency in the verdicts which could have been corrected in virtually no time at all by a resubmission of the cause to the jury had either of the appellants raised the matter before the jury was discharged. See Stevens Markets Inc. v. Markantonatos, Fla. 1966, 189 So.2d 624 ; cf. Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 684 and Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 132, 134 . We are reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that the verdict for the plaintiff and against the defendants was amply supp”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.