Quinn v. Millard’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably 451 So. 2d 447 - Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis (1984), 576 So. 2d 322 - Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne (1991)
1 federal appellate · 47 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 Ward v. Ochoa · 127 So. 2d 453 - Mills v. Redwing Carriers, Inc. · Myers v. Korbly · 284 So. 2d 389 - Maule Industries, Inc. v. Rountree · 256 So. 2d 50 - Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Byrd
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants’ fourth argument challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling which allowed a psychiatrist to testify as to Truman’s mental condition. The assertion that defendants were not timely notified of plaintiffs’ intention to call the doctor as a witness is refuted by the record. The contention that the doctor’s testimony was inadmissible because he was an examining physician and not a treating physician is governed by this court’s decision in Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company, 253 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), which held that the testimony of a psychiatrist is admissible when based on his own examination of the patient and his expertise in psychiatry. 1 Therefore this argument, too, is without merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morella v. Brown“If defendants had raised objections at the time of deposition on the grounds stated in their in-court objections and in this appeal, plaintiffs might have been able to obviate or cure any alleged deficiencies.... Since the required objections were not timely raised, defendants will not be allowed to profit by their own omissions, and we find no prejudicial error in the admission of this witness' deposition. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(d)(3)(A) and (B); Evans v. Perry, 161 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(A) Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition unless the ground of the objection is one that might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.”
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.