456 So. 2d 622 - Kirkpatrick v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably 578 So. 2d 1006 - Williams v. Touro Infirmary (1991), Capital Bancshares, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1992)
1 federal appellate · 27 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 Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. · 289 So. 2d 116 - Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc. · In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Company · Succession of Kernan · Succession of Caffarel
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.
“"... 1) [T]here must be an enrichment, 2) there must be an impoverishment, 3) there must be a causal relationship between the enrichment and the impoverishment, 4) there must be an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment or impoverishment, and 5) there must be no other remedy at law...."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“| ls[A]lthough plaintiffs allege that the defendants were enriched as the result of these attorneys’ efforts, there is no allegation of a correlative impoverishment to the lawyers. There is no indication or allegation in the pleadings that the plaintiffs expended any more time, effort, or expenses in obtaining a result which “inured to the benefit of the defendants” than they would have in securing the same result for the benefit of their clients alone. Nor is there any allegation that the plaintiffs were impoverished by the loss or prevention of an expectation of gain, for by their own admission plaintiffs did not even know of the existence of the defendants until well after the completion of the opposition to the will and so could not have expected any gain or recompense from that quarter.”
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.