Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 571 SO2D 278 - Sullivan v. Heal

Sullivan v. Heal’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2012

6 state decisions

20199020002010decided

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 Burnett v. Smith · Hutto v. Kremer · 375 So. 2d 1024 - Mosby v. Gandy · 394 So. 2d 864 - GULF NAT. BANK v. Wallace

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

  1. “Mistakes, Inadvertence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: ..... (3) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). ..... The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than six months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] party asking for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must satisfy the [trial] court that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial and that it was not owing to a want of diligence on his part that it was not discovered sooner.”
    1 later decision 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.