Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 SO2D 1187 - Moore v. Glover

Moore v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 773 So. 2d 1011 - Ex Parte Ryals (2000), 554 So. 2d 376 - Greene v. Thompson (1989)

39 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

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 368 So. 2d 516 - Garrett v. Raytheon Co., Inc. · Ex Parte Dowling · Hartford Insurance v. Lagano · 431 So. 2d 1263 - Tucker v. Nichols · Norris v. Seibels

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

  1. “"Clearly, however, had plaintiff offered a proper explanation for his failure to offer that additional evidence in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court could have considered it in deciding whether to amend or vacate its entry of summary judgment."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] Rule 59(e) motion does not operate to extend the time for filing affidavits or other material in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[P]laintiff's motion, with its attached exhibit and affidavit, sought to have the trial court reconsider its grant of summary judgment in light of the new evidence (as opposed to `newly discovered evidence') belatedly submitted by plaintiff. This is not the purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion. A motion for reconsideration made after the entry of an order granting a summary judgment is not proper where the motion is ... simply used by the plaintiff to submit evidence, belatedly, in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.