Thornton v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It appears to us the jury itself, the trier of facts, by its question was taking a more advanced view of the law from the nature of the facts before it and wanted to be advised if it could compare the negligence of the parties in arriving at its verdict. This the trial judge instructed the jury it could not do. The trial judge thus expressly rejected application of the comparative negligence doctrine to the facts of the case and in effect forbid its availability. "The Jury's question to the trial judge appears to fit the saving provision in item 3 quoted above, `unless the applicability of the comparative negligence rule was appropriately and properly raised during some stage of the litigation.' Thus it would appear the jury was more clairvoyant or perceptive concerning what the law should be and would soon be than the trial judge and the parties litigant who were hobbled in the trial process by existing appellate precedents. "The clarification the jury sought taken in the light of the subsequent change of the law comes squarely within the applicable rule announced in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, supra, and Winter Park Golf Estates, Inc. v. City of Winter Park, 114 Fla. 350 , 163 So. 842 . In the latter cited case, which Rouse expressly followed, it was held: Where law applicable to case had been determined by Supreme Court since present case was argued and submitted, case would be remanded for reconsideration in the light of law as so recently stated. "In Ro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 297 So. 2d 107 - Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola

2. “3. As to those cases in which trial has already begun or in which verdict or judgment has already been rendered, this opinion shall not be applicable, unless the applicability of the comparative negligence rule was appropriately and properly raised during some stage of the litigation. 4. As to those cases on appeal in which the applicability of the comparative negligence rule has been properly and appropriately made a question of appellate review, this opinion shall be applicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 298 So. 2d 512 - Valdez v. Fesler

3. “If one party is more negligent than the other, what is the law?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 297 So. 2d 107 - Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola