335 So. 2d 815 - Thayer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 515 So. 2d 161 - Carawan v. State (1987), 604 So. 2d 452 - Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion (1992)
1 federal appellate · 86 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 Van Pelt v. Hilliard · Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands · McKibben v. Mallory · 118 So. 2d 664 - Vocelle v. Knight Brothers Paper Company · 275 So. 2d 521 - Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc.
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is, of course, a general principle of statutory construction that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another; expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jordan v. State · Locke v. Hawkes“"The law clearly requires that the legislative intent be determined primarily from the language of the statute because a statute is to be taken, construed and applied in the form enacted. Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792 , 78 So. 693 (1918); Vocelle v. Knight Bros. Paper Co., 118 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). The reason for this rule is that the Legislature must be assumed to know the meaning of words and to have expressed its intent by the use of the words found in the statute."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A statute operates prospectively unless the intent that it operate retrospectively is clearly expressed. Indeed, an act should never be construed retrospectively unless this was clearly the intention of the legislature. This is especially so where the effect of giving it a retroactive operation would be to interfere with an existing contract, destroy a vested right, or create a new liability in connection with a past transaction. The presumption is that it was intended to operate prospectively, unless its language requires that it be given a retroactive operation. The basis for retrospective interpretation must be unequivocal and leave no doubt as to the legislative intent.”
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.