Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 SO2D 1285 - Bevan v. D'ALESSANDRO

Bevan v. D'ALESSANDRO’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2013

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

401981199020002010decided

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 360 So. 2d 68 - Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. Vasta · 314 So. 2d 578 - Fears v. Lunsford · 367 So. 2d 1089 - Select Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Wong · 207 So. 2d 325 - Meyer v. Contemporary Broadcasting Company · Ambassador Ins. Co. v. HIGHLANDS GENERAL HOSP

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We are aware that in Select Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Wong, 367 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court carved out a narrow exception to the general rule, holding a voluntary dismissal inoperative in situations where fraud on the court was attempted by the filing of a voluntary dismissal. There, however, the plaintiff had received affirmative relief to which he was not entitled and sought to avoid correction of the trial court’s error by taking a voluntary dismissal. Here, on the other hand, [the plaintiff] has received no affirmative relief, nor does his action in taking a voluntary dismissal rise to the level of a fraud on the court under the circumstances. Therefore, although we feel [the plaintiff] has thwarted the intent and purpose of the rule, his absolute right to the benefits of rule 1.420(a)(1) superseded his responsibility to comply with rule 1.420(e).”
    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.