608 So. 2d 1 - Timmons v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably McMahan v. Toto (2001), 629 So. 2d 1036 - Schmidt v. Fortner (1993)
52 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 589 So. 2d 287 - State v. Cabrera · 595 So. 2d 12 - Leapai v. Milton · 550 So. 2d 442 - Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.442 · 559 So. 2d 442 - Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Alilin · 581 So. 2d 1327 - Rabatie v. US SEC. Ins. Co.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is clear that the circumstances under which a party is entitled to costs and attorney's fees is substantive and that our rule [Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442] can only control procedural matters.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“offer of judgment and demand for judgment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Leapai, this Court upheld the constitutionality of section 45.061 and found that the statute did not infringe on the rule-making authority of the Court. Finding no relevant distinction between section 45.061 and section 768.79, the district court ruled that section 768.79 was likewise constitutional. Second, the district court held that rule 1.442 could be applied to this case despite the fact that Dvorak's cause of action preceded the effective date of the rule. The district court once again relied on this Court's decision in Leapai and our holding that section 45.061 could be retroactively applied to a cause of action so long as the statute was enacted before the offeree's rejection of the offer of judgment. The district court held that the same reasoning should apply to rule 1.442, and found that the rule would apply in this instance because TGI Friday's rejected Dvorak's offer after rule 1.442 became effective.”
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.