43 So. 2d 347 - State v. Parks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * We do not think there is any substance to this contention. Section 11 of Article V of the Constitution, defining the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in terms authorizes the legislature to clothe it with jurisdiction of other matters, and in State v. Sullivan we held that the legislature might vest coordinate jurisdiction in two courts, provided the ‘exclusive’ jurisdiction of neither of them was invaded.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 So. 2d 8 - Miller v. Davis · 145 So. 2d 751 - State ex rel. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Group v. Taylor

2. ““It is next contended that Section 13 of Chapter 25574, Acts of 1949, is violative of Section 3, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, in that it unduly restricts the right of trial by jury.” “Section 13, in effect, provides that a jury trial may be had upon demand of the plaintiff at the commencement of the suit or by defendant within five days after service of notice of suit by depositing with the judge or his clerk such a sum as the judge may fix as reasonable to secure the payment of costs incurred by reason of a jury trial.. Section 3, Declaration of Rights provides that ‘the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever.’ ” “We do not think there is any merit to this contention. The act imposes the same requirement on the plaintiff and the defendant to secure a jury. The prerequisite for securing a jury is the payment of such costs as the Court may fix by reason of a jury trial. Costs should not be such as to make it difficult or impossible to secure a jury but we think the court has the discretion to fix costs in such manner as to prevent this. State ex rel. Jennings v. Peacock, 126 Fla. 743 , 171 So. 821 ; Labowe v. Balthazor, 180 Wis. 419 , 193 N.W. 244 , 32 A.L.R. 862 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 So. 2d 751 - State ex rel. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Group v. Taylor