523 So. 2d 1255 - Amfac, Inc. v. Weinstein’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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To use the language of Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz , this defendant's contacts with Florida were not purposeful availment but random, fortuitous or attenuated. See 471 U.S. at 472 , 105 S.Ct. at 2182 . Such contacts could have been anywhere on the globe Weinstein chose to spend his later years — so long as communication for consultation remained feasible between him and the company. We cannot support equating the circumstances here with a contention that this defendant reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Florida. See, e.g., Lacy v. Force V Corporation, 403 So.2d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Patterson v. Dietze, Inc., 764 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir.1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 553 So. 2d 346 - Segal v. Russell