Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 SO2D 441 - Scherzer v. Beron

Scherzer v. Beron’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2006

5 state decisions

40198419902000decided

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 Washington v. State

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

  1. “To say that under the no-fault provisions a motorcyclist is not only precluded from obtaining personal injury protection benefits but barred from maintaining a tort action as well, is to leave a motorcyclist without a remedy. In La-sky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974), the Florida Supreme Court recognized the derivative benefit from mandatory insurance coverage: In exchange for the loss of a former right to recover — upon proving the other party to be at fault — for pain and suffering, etc., in cases where the thresholds of the statute are not met, the injured party is assured a speedy payment of his medical bills and compensation for lost income from his own insurer, even where the injured party was himself clearly at fault.... The provisions of F.S. 627.737, F.S.A, do provide a reasonable alternative to the traditional action in tort, and there fore do not violate the right of access to the courts.... Id. at 15 . In the case of a motorcyclist, no such alternative exists.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function. (b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement. (c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement. (d) Death.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a motorcyclist need not satisfy the threshold to maintain a suit for the damages enumerated in subsection (2) of Section 627.737.”
    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.