569 So. 2d 1357 - Kates v. Millheiser’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2010
1 federal appellate · 5 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 377 So. 2d 1150 - Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee · Davis v. Davis · Department of Transp. v. Morehouse · 431 So. 2d 1011 - Whipple v. State · City of Miami v. AFSCME, Council 79
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, it is the responsibility of the appellate courts to guide the trial courts as to questionable procedures or rulings. A per curiam reversal opinion does not give the trial judge any guidance as to how to correct the supposed error which was the basis of the reversal. Second, to the extent that the reversal relates to evidentiary matters, it fails to place the trial lawyers on notice as to what issues are open for retrial. Finally, the need for an appellate court to announce the reason for a reversal is essential to the integrity of the judicial process. It is important for litigants and the public to recognize that determinations develop as the result of a fair and just reasoning process as opposed to perceiving judicial decisions as unjustified and arbitrary. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to maintain the integrity of the legal system by ensuring that the judgment processes in the appellate system involve scholarly and fair deliberations which are open for the public to view. (FN 1) When a case is appealed, the judgment under review is clothed with a presumption of correctness. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Department of Transportation v. Morehouse, 350 So.2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 129 (Fla.1978). If the appellate court per curiam affirms the trial court decision, this means that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of correctness, but still leaves the parties with the knowl”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, an attorney serves as agent for his client; the attorney's acts are the acts of the principal, the client.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cruise v. Graham
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.