Hoon v. Pate Const. Co., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2018
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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 412 So. 2d 461 - Swartz v. Swartz · 511 So. 2d 295 - Florida Bar v. Johnson · Klebe v. United States · 491 So. 2d 276 - Bender v. First Fidelity Savings & Loan Ass'n of Winter Park · 589 So. 2d 287 - State v. Cabrera
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [a] misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) the representor ... ma[d]e the representation without knowledge as to its truth or falsity, or ... under circumstances in which he ought to have known of its falsity; (3) the representor ... intend[ed] that the misrepresentation induce another to act on it; (4) injury must result to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree that the appellants were entitled to a judgment on the pleadings or a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim set out in the pleadings. Further, we have been cited to no circumstances in this case that would invoke the principles of implied contract. Ordinarily, contracts may be implied in order to justify payments for services rendered or goods provided under circumstances where there is no express contract. Aldebot v. Story, 534 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1971). We fail to see how this principle applies to the breach of contract claim asserted by Pate here. This is a situation where the rights of the parties are set out in written documents. Ordinarily, an implied contract will not be recognized when there is a writing dealing with the same subject. See, e.g., Matter of Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 831 F.2d 1221, 1229 (3d Cir. 1987); Klebe v. United States, 263 U.S. 188, 191 , 44 S.Ct. 58, 59 , 68 L.Ed. 244 (1923). To recognize an implied contract in a situation where the parties agree that the written document provides that the owner may "reject a bid for any reason" would be to emasculate the effect of that provision. We conclude that the trial court should have granted a judgment on the pleadings or directed a verdict for the defendants on breach of contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Owner intends to award construction to the lowest responsible bidder qualified by experience and who possesses adequate plant, equipment, and supervisory personnel to complete the contract, and who is financially secure. .... Owner reserves right to reject any and all bids for whatever reason he may deem necessary for his best interest, and to waive any and all formalities in regard to acceptance or rejection of any bid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.