Blake v. Oceancoast Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is simply no . . . support for [a trial court] finding that the Property Appraiser did not consider [emphasis in original] all of the criteria set forth in Section 193.011, Florida Statutes . . ., although, most certainly, the record reflects that the Property Appraiser assigned far greater weight to certain of the criteria than others, as, of course, he was permitted to do without jeopardizing the legality of his assessment. The Bath Club, Inc. v. Dade County, 394 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1981); Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1978); Atlantic International Investment Corp. v. Turner, 383 So.2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lanier v. Walt Disney World Co., 316 So.2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Town of Bay Harbor Island v. Lancelot Associates, 243 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Metropolitan Dade County v. Tropical Park, Inc., 231 So.2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Because the evidence indisputably showed that the Property Appraiser’s assessment was made in substantial compliance with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes . . ., the assessment was entitled to be presumed correct. Since the evidence presented by the taxpayers did not show that there was no reasonable hypothesis to support the Property Appraiser’s assessment,””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom