Lee v. Chung’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2017
7 state decisions
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 405 So. 2d 1345 - BC Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado · 510 So. 2d 1242 - Bettez v. City of Miami · 271 So. 2d 798 - Smiles v. Young · Kash N'Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia · 419 So. 2d 1180 - Derma Lift Salon, Inc. v. Swanko
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, as here, there is an unsworn motion, not supported by evidence of any sort at the hearing, the motion, without more, does not warrant vacating a prior final judgment which on its face appears proper. See Yu v. Weaver, 364 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A party moving to vacate a default must set forth facts explaining or justifying the mistake or inadvertence by affidavit or other sworn statement. B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). A movant has the burden to prove "excusable neglect" by affidavit or other sworn statement. Collins v. Collins, 519 So.2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pertz v. Zohar“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pertz v. Zohar
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.