Heyman v. Kline’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · McGee v. International Life Insurance · United States v. First National City Bank · Arrowsmith v. United Press International · Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Defendant, Robert S. Kline, has no right, title or interest in (a) the real property described in Exhibit A attached to the amended complaint; (b) the real property described in Exhibit B attached to the amended complaint; or (c) the lease dated February 1, 1969 between Annette Hey-man, landlord, and Tampa Mall, Inc., tenant. (2) Plaintiffs are not obligated to pay defendant, Robert S. Kline, any further compensation, commissions or other benefits. (3) Defendant, Robert S. Kline, his agents, servants, attorneys, nominees and persons with whom he is in active concert or participation, be, and they hereby are, permanently enjoined from initiating any legal proceedings, filing any documents on land records, or making any assertions to any financial institutions, Tampa Mall, Inc., or others, in which said defendant claims any right, title or interest in the real property and lease referred to in paragraph (1) (a), (b) and (c) of this order. (4) Defendant, Robert S. Kline, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, shall release and effectively remove from the land records of Hillsborough County, Florida, the copy of the assignment of the option executed by Annette Heyman on July 16, 1968 which said defendant recorded on said land records on or about September 16, 1969. (5) Plaintiffs shall recover from defendant, Robert S. Kline, and his attorneys, John R. Bush, Esq. and Harvey B. Oshins, Esq., the sum of $3,194.57, representing reasonable expenses incurred by plaintif”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Court finds, after an evidentiary hearing, that process was served personally on defendant at his home in Largo, Florida, on the night of February 12, 1970 by Albert A. Estes, Sr. This finding is based upon the Court’s determination of the credibility of Mr. Estes whose demeanor the Court had an opportunity to observe while he was on the witness stand at the hearing on March 3, 1970.””
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.