490 So. 2d 213 - Frazier v. Seaboard System Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After an adverse jury verdict and entry of judgment, appellee [Seaboard] filed a timely motion for new trial and alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J.N.O.V.). On December 5, 1985, the trial court granted [Seaboard's] motion for new trial, without expressly ruling on the alternative motion for J.N.O.V. Appellant [Frazier] filed a motion for rehearing of that order ten days thereafter. The trial court denied [Frazier's] motion for rehearing on January 9, 1986. On February 6, 1986, the trial court entered an order expressly denying [Seaboard's] alternative motion for J.N.O.V. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on February 7, 1986.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 508 So. 2d 345 - Frazier v. Seaboard System RR, Inc.

2. “Should an order granting a new trial be treated as a final order to the extent that a timely motion for rehearing or reconsideration will toll rendition of the order for purposes of filing the notice of appeal?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 508 So. 2d 345 - Frazier v. Seaboard System RR, Inc.