417 So. 2d 1108 - Irwin v. Marko’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2004
9 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
Relies on Dickenson v. Parks · Brown v. Rowe · Farto v. State · 113 So. 2d 218 - State Ex Rel. Arnold v. Revels · 408 So. 2d 677 - Irwin v. Marko
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that the respondent Marko has made certain comments on the record in this cause indicating that he intends to grant the subject motion for attorney’s fees and to award an amount in the six figures; these comments were made prior to any hearing below on the said motion. As such, we think the respondent judge has created the appearance of having prejudged the attorney’s fee issue in advance of hearing it and, accordingly, is required by our law to recuse himself. See, e.g., State v. Steele, 348 So.2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and authorities collected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kates v. Seidenman
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.