← 466 So. 2d 1100 - Meehan v. Celotex Corp.

466 So. 2d 1100 - Meehan v. Celotex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

cited by 19 later decisions

states following

March 1993

most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. · 389 So. 2d 999 - Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co. · 413 So. 2d 872 - Carnavil v. Pines of Delray Ass'n · 438 So. 2d 830 - Florida Bar v. Imand · 360 So. 2d 1244 - Miles 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 209 N.J. Super. 242 - Seckular v. Celotex · 523 So. 2d 141 - Celotex Corp. v. Meehan
“We are now convinced that just as in the case of other issues of substantive law, the significant relationships test should be used to decide conflicts of law questions concerning the statute of limitations. Our ruling does not do violence to Florida’s borrowing statute. We simply hold that the significant relationships test should be employed to decide in which state the cause of action “arose.” The borrowing statute will only come into play if it is determined that the cause of action arose in another state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Bates v. Cook, Inc. · H. Richard Bates, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr. Philip O. Littleford, Deceased, Cross-Appellee v. Cook, Inc., Cross-Appellant
“May an action which could not be maintained by reason of limitations in the state in which the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred because that state does not recognize postponement of accrual until discovery, nonetheless be maintained in Florida because Florida postpones accrual until discovery?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 523 So. 2d 141 - Celotex Corp. v. Meehan · 466 So. 2d 1113 - Nance v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

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.