3 So. 3d 1185 - Butler v. Yusem’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 474 So. 2d 212 - Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co. · 731 So. 2d 638 - Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA · 829 So. 2d 901 - Swett v. State · Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc. · Yusem v. Butler
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Fourth District erred by recharac-terizing the trial court’s ruling as a lack of justifiable reliance. We remand for the Fourth District to address whether it may apply justifiable reliance under the tipsy coachman doctrine to affirm the trial court. On remand, if the Fourth District concludes that it may rely on the tipsy coachman doctrine, the Fourth District must address Butler’s claims individually to determine whether justifiable reliance applies to each claim. In its decision under review, the Fourth District lumped Butler’s claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty together and then applied the justifiable reliance requirement to all his claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 'tipsy coachman’ doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that 'reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as 'there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.