Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 505 SO2D 1120 - Mart v. Hill

Mart v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

986
cited by 986 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 974 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 986 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD (1993), Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal (1997)

2 federal appellate · 974 state decisions

403019871990200020102020decided

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 Arceneaux v. Domingue · 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. · Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. · Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc. · Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Company

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

  1. “a. the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and b. the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).”
    97 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) Was the conduct in question a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm? (2) What, if any, duties were owed by the respective parties? (3) Were the requisite duties breached? (4) Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?”
    40 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”
    9 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.