613 So. 2d 918 - Kelley v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2019
21 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 Florida Bar Re Amendment to Article XI, Florida Bar Integration Rule (Rules of Discipline) · Inanc v. Schreckengost · Gulfstream Park Rac. Ass'n v. Dept. of Bus. Reg. · 569 So. 2d 1271 - Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero · 61 So. 2d 179 - Beasley v. Girten
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“sparingly and reserved to those instances where the conduct is flagrant, willful or persistent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Either pre-trial orders mean what they say or they don't. I've gone through the case. I've called several times to the lawyers to let them know what the status of the case was. I don't think it's my obligation to nursemaid the lawyers to let them know that their pleadings are not in and where are they. I think it would be considered arrogant by the lawyers on the part of the Court if I tried to teach you or imply that you didn't know what you were doing. But at some point the lawyers will be held to the same standard as other lawyers. Bemoaning the loss of professionalism, members of the Bar often suggest that the trial bench bears some of the responsibility because judges are reluctant to impose sanctions. The trial judges respond that when they attempt to impose those sanctions, they are not supported, but rather are reversed by the appellate courts. In my opinion, it is time the appellate courts assist, rather than hinder, the trial courts. Enough is enough! No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. We, as appellate judges, should not look at the cold record and substitute our subjective opinions of what we might have done if we were the trial judge, for the opinions of the judge who has an obligation to adjudicate the cases on his or her docket in an orderly and timely manner. The record and the findings of the trial court clearly demonstrate that the actions (or more appropriately, inactions) of the appellants' attorney were willful and in deliberate disregard of the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is altogether too easy for an appellate judge, sitting on the mountaintop, far removed from the litigation, to opine that a trial judge could have simply sanctioned the attorney and rescheduled the trial, but that is not the real world of crowded litigation dockets, limited availability of trial time and courtrooms, and judicially mandated time standards. Attorneys have an obligation, not only to their clients, but also to the courts and to their profession. The record clearly shows that the appellee was ready for trial and that the appellee's attorney had rearranged his schedule to accommodate the court's trial schedule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.