Fabre v. Marin’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 187 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Piamba Cortes ex rel. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc. (1999), 659 So. 2d 249 - Wells v. Tallahassee Mem. Med. Center (1995)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 187 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 280 So. 2d 431 - Hoffman v. Jones · 450 So. 2d 217 - Holly v. Auld · 2 Cal. 4th 593 - DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. · Brown v. Keill · 507 So. 2d 1080 - Smith v. Department of Ins.
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“judgment should be entered against each party liable on the basis of that party's percentage of fault.... Clearly, the only means of determining a party's percentage of fault is to compare that party's percentage to all of the other entities who contributed to the accident, regardless of whether they have been or could have been joined as defendants.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage“the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, we reject the argument that our interpretation of section 768.81(3) when coupled with the right to setoff under section 768.31(5) will lead to a double reduction in the amount of damages. This possibility may be avoided by applying the setoff contemplated by section 768.31(5) against the total damages (reduced by any comparative negligence of the plaintiff) rather than against the apportioned damages caused by a particular defendant. For example, suppose defendant A is released from the suit for a settlement of $60,000 and the case goes to trial against defendant B. The jury returns a verdict finding the plaintiff's comparative negligence to be 40%, the negligence of A and B to be 30% each, and the damages to be $300,000. Because the $60,000 setoff would not reduce the plaintiff's $180,000 to below $90,000, B would still have to pay the full $90,000 for his share of the liability. Of course, if the damages were found to be $150,000, the $60,000 from the settlement with A would be set off against the plaintiff's $90,000 recovery which would mean that B's obligation would be reduced from $45,000 to $30,000.”
3 later decisions 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.