State Ex Rel. Watson v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 state decisions

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

1. “"Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy." The doctrine of estoppel is applicable in all cases where one, by word, act or conduct, willfully caused another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on this belief injuriously to himself, or to alter his own previous condition to his injury.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 835 So. 2d 1091 - Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. S.A.P. · Southchase Parcel 45 Community Ass'n v. Garcia

2. “Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 790 So. 2d 1071 - Major League Baseball v. Morsani · 835 So. 2d 1091 - Florida Dhrs v. Sap

3. ““The record reflects that Collins, McDonald, McMullen, Watson and Wells, on May 2, 1950, submitted their respective candidacies for the office of Congressman for the First Congressional District to the electors of the •several counties thereof, inclusive of Pinellas. It may be assumed that each candidate for this office solicited votes in the several counties of the District by contacting the voters, or by letters, telephone communications, radio addresses, newspaper advertisements, through workers interested in each candidacy, and by speeches by the candidates delivered in each county to the voters and otherwise. The constitutional invalidity of the three Acts applicable to Pinellas County was presented on June 20, 1950, some twenty-eight days after the date of the second primary. If the relator’s contentions were here sustained, the electors of Pinellas County would be denied the right or privilege of voting for a representative in the Congress of the United States — the relator and Collins would be declared the candidates receiving the highest number of votes, contrary to the fundamental democratic doctrine of our majority rule. “It is pointed out that the relator by becoming a candidate for the office of Congressman, submitted his candidacy according to the rules of the Democratic Party in each county of the Congressional District. He never raised the constitutionality of the three Acts prior to or during the period he was seeking the nomination. He vigorously participate”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 So. 2d 816 - Baker v. State ex rel. Caldwell