630 So. 2d 1324 - Hackett v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2016
11 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 591 So. 2d 342 - Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs · 372 So. 2d 1225 - Chaisson v. Domingue · 550 So. 2d 609 - Breland v. Schilling · 627 So. 2d 148 - Yount v. Maisano · 608 So. 2d 981 - Great American Ins. Co. v. Gaspard
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“|sThe Hacketts argued that Mrs. Schmidt should be liable for failing to warn about or prevent the abuse in the same way that she would liable for failing to warn about or prevent an injury caused by the existence of a hole in the floor of her home or the presence of a dog on the premises. However, this situation cannot be likened to a premises liability situation, where the owners of the property may be strictly liable for injuries caused by defects in their property. Mr. Schmidt is not Mrs. Schmidt’s property. As the Hacketts concede, Mrs. Schmidt cannot be held responsible for Mr. Schmidt’s negligent or intentional acts. Neither can she be held responsible for failing to warn about or protect from his activities in a situation where she has no special relationship to the victim. Id., pp. 1828-29.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e do not cover bodily injury ... intentionally caused by an insured person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When an insured's subjective intent must be determined, the court should consider `all the facts and circumstances bearing on such intent or expectation.' Yount, 627 So.2d at 152 . Since those determinations of subjective intent are factual, the trier of fact is given much discretion in determining intent. Id.”
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.