Parker v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This represents an application of the principle that in these types of circum stances in which each of two different legislative enactments generally apply but only one specifically applies, the specific governs over the general. Where there is in the same statute a specific provision, and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include matters embraced in the former, the particular provision must control, and the general provision must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular provision; additional words of qualification needed to harmonize a general and a prior special provision in the same statute should be added to the general provision, rather than to the special one.... Similarly, with respect to a conflict arising between a statute dealing generally with a subject, and another dealing specifically with a certain phase of it, the specific legislation controls in a proper case. 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes § 257. See Bryan v. Landis, [ 106 Fla. 19 ] 142 So. 650, 653 (Fla.1932). It is a well settled rule of statutory construction ... that a special statute covering a particular subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision covering the same and other subjects in general terms. In this situation “ ‘the statute relating to the particular part of the general subject will operate as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 1382 - Palm Harbor Special Fire Control District v. Kelly · 932 So. 2d 506 - Lundy v. FOUR SEASONS OCEAN GRAND PALM BCH.

2. “In each instance of the Rule's misuse, the time and effort of three judges is wasted, not to mention the time, energy and effort of the Clerk's office and the other persons who function in the court's processes. It is our hope, and certainly expectation, that the bar will heed the Rule's command that the "motion shall not reargue the merits of the court's order." The instant motion is a paradigm of the abuse giving rise to our reaction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 So. 2d 135 - Elliott v. Elliott · 631 So. 2d 1100 - Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes

3. “For the purpose of this section, no individual who is a subordinate personnel, deputy sheriff or police officer need resign pursuant to subsection (2) or subsection (3) unless such individual is seeking to qualify for a public office which is currently held by an individual who has the authority to appoint, employ, promote or otherwise supervise that subordinate personnel, deputy sheriff or police officer and who has qualified as a candidate for reelection to that public office. However, any such personnel, deputy sheriff or police officer shall take a leave of absence without pay from his employment during the period which he is seeking election to public office.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. Alderman