480 So. 2d 855 - Tapia v. Ham’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

cited by 25 later decisions

states following

December 2004

most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Taylor v. Rowell (1999), 580 So. 2d 1109 - Robinson v. Moore (1991)

24 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 418 So. 2d 575 - Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co. · 404 So. 2d 948 - AIU Ins. Co. v. Roberts · 441 So. 2d 1185 - Southern American Ins. Co. v. Dobson · 407 So. 2d 503 - Jordan v. Honea · Capone v. King

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

“"Plaintiffs argue that Ford's insurance manager did not have authority to reject UM coverage because a corporate resolution had not been passed. This argument is without merit. When a corporation is insured and wishes to reject UM coverage, an authorized agent may execute the rejection form."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 784 So. 2d 740 - Stewart v. Edwards · 529 So. 2d 1289 - Delaune v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.
“in accordance with the standard provisions of an automobile liability policy”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 490 So. 2d 377 - Donnelly v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car · 535 So. 2d 511 - Puckett v. Hertz Corp.
“Construing this explicit and unconditional language in the Rent-A-Car System agreement, we hold that the obligation to provide excess liability coverage existed to protect, or to benefit, not only Ford and Wray, but the lessee of the automobile. Benzinger and her passenger would be third party beneficiaries of any excess liability policy that Ford might have purchased to fulfill its obligation. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 697 So. 2d 311 - Johnson v. Davis

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.