Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 439 SO2D 318 - Leitman v. Boone

Leitman v. Boone’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably National Union Fire Insurance v. Carib Aviation, Inc. (1985), Katz v. Van Der Noord (1989)

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1501983199020002010decided

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 412 So. 2d 461 - Swartz v. Swartz · In Re Fla. Rules of Judicial Administration · Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln · 422 So. 2d 838 - Berek v. Metropolitan Dade County · Daugherty v. Kessler

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

  1. “Likewise, the enforcement of a contract may be prevented by equitable considerations, such as that the contract was fraudulently induced. In such a case, since a contract exists, even though later declared to be void or voidable, certain of its provisions may be operative.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he distinction between no contract at all and one that is unenforceable makes all the difference. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Equitable estoppel” precludes a person from maintaining a position inconsistent with another position which is sought to be maintained at the same time or which was asserted at a previous time; and, as a general rule where a person has, with knowledge of the facts, acted or conducted himself in a particular manner, or asserted a particular claim or right, he cannot afterward assume a position inconsistent with such act or conduct to the prejudice of another who has acted in reliance on such conduct. The doctrine requires of a party consistency of conduct, when inconsistency would work substantial injury to the other party- The above rule is subject to the exception that it is not applicable unless the party’s position in the prior suit was successfully maintained.”
    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.