Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 457 So. 2d 1351 - Evans v. Firestone

457 So. 2d 1351 - Evans v. Firestone’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably 773 So. 2d 7 - Armstrong v. Harris (2000), 632 So. 2d 1018 - In Re Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. (1994)

29 state decisions

13019841990200020102020decided

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 Gory Roofing Tile Manufacturing, Inc. v. Davison · 421 So. 2d 151 - Askew v. Firestone · 89 So. 2d 482 - Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc. · Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty · 448 So. 2d 984 - Fine v. Firestone

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

  1. “ballot summary should tell the voter the legal effect of the amendment, and no more.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The test ... is functional and not locational, and where a proposed amendment changes more than one government function it is clearly multi-subject.... We recognize that all power for each branch of government comes from the people and that the citizens of the state have retained the right to broaden or to restrict that power by initiative amendment. But where such an initiative performs the functions of different branches of government, it clearly fails the functional test for the single-subject limitation the people have incorporated into article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “enfolding disparate subjects within the cloak of a broad generality does not satisfy the single-subject requirement.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.