Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 So. 2d 444 - Florida Bar

462 So. 2d 444 - Florida Bar’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2017

4 state decisions

201985199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[A]ll parties have an absolute right to prohibit the taking of testimony of a witness by communication equipment. The absolute right must be exercised, however, pri- or to the commencement of the proceeding. Once the proceeding begins, the decision to curtail or abort the use of the communication equipment will be in the sound discretion of the court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “direct that communication equipment be used for a motion hearing, pretrial conference, or a status conference.”
    1 later decision 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.