Smith v. Mogelvang’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2019
22 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 International Harvester Credit Corporation and International Harvester Company v. East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc., East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc. v. International Harvester Company · Ellis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. · Universe Tankships, Inc., as Owner of the Ss Ore Chief v. United States · Cruz v. Beckham · 198 So. 2d 319 - In Re Standard Jury Instructions
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a) whether the opposing party had a fair opportunity to defend against the issue and b) whether the opposing party could have offered additional evidence on that issue if it had been pleaded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Of course, the lack of a timely objection is the most significant factor, especially a failure to object on specific grounds that a newly inserted issue is beyond the scope of the pleadings. (2) Another factor may be the technical or esoteric nature of the subject matter of the new issue and the corresponding difficulty for the opposing party to effectively cross-examine and respond with contrary evidence. (3) Whether or not there was justification for the party who is attempting to insert the issue into the case to have failed to plead the issue is another possible factor. (4) Whether the position taken by the party attempting to insert the issue into the case clearly appears to be meritorious may be an additional factor. See Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King International, Inc., 267 So.2d 853, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). (5) A further factor may be whether there is sufficient time from when the issue is inserted into the case, or when there is clear notice that the issue will be inserted into the case, to the time when the opposing party has the opportunity to offer evidence, within which the opposing party may fairly be expected to prepare his position on the issue. See C.A. Davis, Inc. v. City of Miami, 400 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). (6) The amount of the evidence on the issue to which the opposing party has made no objection may be an additional factor. See Pike v. National Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 973, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). (7) Another factor may be the deg”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Unnecessary departures from the standard jury instructions may undermine the unquestionably beneficial effect of those forms on the Florida trial system as a whole. That system depends in large part for its fairness and effective functioning upon reasonably predictable rules and rulings in the conduct of trials. Those instructions “state as accurately as a group of experienced lawyers and judges could state the law of Florida in simple understandable language.” In re: Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions, 198 So.2d 319, 319 (Fla.1967).”
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.