Chapman v. Dillon’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably 507 So. 2d 1080 - Smith v. Department of Ins. (1987), 932 So. 2d 1067 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols (2006)
27 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bates v. State Bar · 281 So. 2d 1 - Kluger v. White · Washington v. State · 335 So. 2d 802 - Carter v. Sparkman · 404 So. 2d 354 - Dillon v. Chapman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 627.737(1), Florida Statutes, undertakes to exempt a tortfeasor from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury caused by a motor vehicle only "to the extent that benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any [authorized] exclusion... ." Therefore, under the statutes cited and Lasky and Chapman, without meeting the thresholds in section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, the tortfeasor and his liability carrier, here State Farm, is liable to the injured party for the 20 percent of medical expenses not payable under the PIP coverages provided by section 627.736(1)(a) and the 40 percent of lost gross income and earning capacity not payable under the PIP coverage provided by section 627.736(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and for 100 percent of those damages as exceeds the applicable policy limits. Of course, after meeting the thresholds of section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, the injured party may also recover in tort from the tortfeasor and his liability carrier for all pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience resulting from bodily injury caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Under the new provisions the injured party still recovers most of his out-of-pocket expenses from his own insurer and is allowed to bring suit for the remainder. (emphasis supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“-1102 6. Did Plaintiff Doreen Matiyosus sustain a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability as a result of Charles Keaten’s negligence? Yes No X If your answer to 6 is “no” answer 7(a) only, total the damages at the bottom of 7 answer 8(a) and total the damages at the bottom of 8. 7. What is the amount of any damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, a. in the past? $5,000.00 b. in the future? TOTAL DAMAGES OF Doreen Matiyosus $5,000.00”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Matiyosus v. Keaten
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.