Corley v. Milliken’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on O'Neill v. Adams · 251 So. 2d 33 - Horace v. American National Bank and Trust Co. · 360 So. 2d 112 - Leviten v. Gaunt · 373 So. 2d 68 - Compania Anonima Simantob v. Bank of America International · Hubsch Manufacturing Co. v. Freeway Washer & Stamping Co.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Only those actions arising from accidents which occurred while the nonresident was actually or constructively in the waters of the state are included within the scope of section 48.19.... The mere circumstance of the “Capt. Jeffery” using a Florida port does not constitute sufficient connection to the cause of action to satisfy either the statutory or constitutional requirements for substitute service pursuant to section 48.19. Therefore, we find that, where a maritime accident occurs outside of state boundaries, the use of a Florida port does not satisfy the requirement of section 48.19 that the cause of action arise from an “accident ... in which the nonresident . .. may be involved while ... operating, navigating, or maintaining ... [a] watercraft in the state.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Corley v. Milliken
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.