Wolfsen v. Applegate’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2016
7 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 604 So. 2d 482 - State v. Arnette · 595 So. 2d 136 - Stebilla v. Mussallem · 614 So. 2d 539 - Duffy v. Brooker · Williams v. Powers
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Investigation" means that an attorney has reviewed the case against each and every potential defendant and has consulted with a medical expert and has obtained a written opinion from said expert.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The procedure for judicial review [of pre-suit notice] cannot be converted into some type of summary proceeding to test the sufficiency, legally or factually, of medical negligence claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[If] the provisions of sections 766.201-212 are `not to be allowed to impinge upon plaintiffs' right of access to the courts, [those sections] must be construed as imposing on plaintiffs only reasonable and limited duties, for a limited time, before allowing them to file suit in courts of this state.'”
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.