384 So. 2d 1283 - Dade County v. Ferro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There are two issues presented by this petition for certiorari. First, whether the four year absolute bar contained in Section 95.11, subparagraph 4, subparagraph b, Florida Statutes (1975), is applicable to the facts of this cause as found by the trial judge. Second, if applicable to this case, whether the four year absolute bar to medical malpractice claims contained in Section 95.11(4)(b) unconstitutionally denies a claimant access to the courts under Article I, Section 21, of the Florida Constitution. Because we resolved the first issue adversely to the ruling of the trial court, it is unnecessary to reach the second issue presented.” Dade County v. Ferro, supra.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crook v. Romaguera · 427 So. 2d 290 - CATES EX REL. CATES v. Graham

2. “Generally referring to the conceded authority of the Legislature to pass a statute of limitations or to change a period previously established by law and to make the changes applicable to existing causes of action so long as a reasonable time is permitted by the new law for commencing an action before the action is barred, we approve the following language from American Jurisprudence: `Where the Legislature has not sufficiently manifested its intent whether a statute of limitations should apply retroactively or should apply prospectively only, the question is passed on to the courts to determine, as a matter of construction, in which of these ways the statute should apply. In most jurisdictions, in the absence of a clear manifestation of legislative intent to the contrary, statutes of limitation are construed as prospective and not retrospective in their operation, and the presumption is against intent on the part of the Legislature to make such a statute retroactive. Thus, rights accrued, claims arising, proceedings instituted, orders made under the former law, or judgments rendered before the passage of an amended statute of limitations will not be affected by it, but will be governed by the original statute unless a contrary intention is expressed by the Legislature in the new law.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 471 So. 2d 603 - Durring v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills

3. “[W]here a right of access to the courts for redress for a particular injury has been provided by statutory law ... or where such right has become a part of the common law of the State ..., the Legislature is without power to abolish such a right without providing a reasonable alternative to protect the rights of the people of the State to redress for injuries, unless the Legislature can show an overpowering public necessity for the abolishment of such right, and no alternative method of meeting such public necessity can be shown.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 427 So. 2d 290 - CATES EX REL. CATES v. Graham