Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 626 So. 2d 1360 - Prosperi v. Code, Inc.

626 So. 2d 1360 - Prosperi v. Code, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc. v. Florida Express Shipping Co. (2000), Danis Industries v. GROUND IMP. TECH. (1994)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

220199320002010decided

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 Cooper v. State · 604 So. 2d 807 - Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc. · 589 So. 2d 287 - State v. Cabrera · 249 So. 2d 496 - Emery v. International Glass & Mfg., Inc. · 352 So. 2d 103 - First Atlantic Bldg. Corp. v. Neubauer Const. 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The fact that the claimant obtains a net judgment is a significant factor but it need not always control the determination of who should be considered the prevailing party.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “the fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he net judgment rule comes into play when the claimant fails to foreclose a mechanic's lien but obtains a judgment for the underlying claim which exceeds any claim of the owner. As applied, the rule automatically precludes the owner from recovering attorney's fees under section 713.29. It has no relevance to an award of attorney's fees to the claimant because an unsuccessful lien claimant cannot recover attorney's fees under section 713.29.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.