421 So. 2d 46 - Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably 592 So. 2d 344 - Ronbeck Const. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. (1992), 720 So. 2d 214 - Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc. (1998)
32 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 97 So. 2d 693 - Brooks v. Owens · 378 So. 2d 58 - Padgett v. First Federal S & L Ass'n · 89 So. 2d 24 - Kauffman v. King · Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard · Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Alderman
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jaye does not state how the alleged denial of this constitutional right causes an irreparable injury. Jaye cites only to Spring , in which the Third District concluded that it had certiorari jurisdiction to review an order striking a demand for jury trial because "the denial of the right to jury trial is more than the denial of a constitutional right; it is the denial of a fundamental right recognized prior to the adoption of a written constitution.' We disagree. Our disagreement is not because we fail to respect the fundamental right to a jury trial. Our disagreement is because we believe that an error in failing to provide a jury trial is an error which can be corrected on direct appeal without the type of irreparable harm necessary to support certiorari review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f a compulsory legal counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant to a jury trial on issues which are not common to any issue made by the equitable complaint, the trial court should proceed to try the equitable issue non-jury with appropriate provision made for a jury trial as to the law issues if disposition of the equitable issues does not conclude the case. But where the compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant (upon timely demand) to a jury trial on issues which are sufficiently similar or related to the issues made by the equitable claim that a determination by the first fact finder would necessarily bind the latter one, such issues may not be tried non-jury by the court since to do so would deprive the counter-claimant of his constitutional right to trial by jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the lower court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate... .”
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.