633 So. 2d 91 - Baker v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2024
5 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 Allen v. McCurry · Durfee v. Duke · Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men's Ass'n · Sherrer v. Sherrer · Chicago Life Insurance v. Cherry
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a defendant makes a special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of a court, and the court overrules the objection and determines that it does have jurisdiction, that decision is res judicata and precludes collateral attack on the judgment, even though the ruling may have been erroneous on the facts or law. See 5 Am. Jur.2d Appearance § 4 (1962). An aggrieved defendant must seek reversal in an appellate court of the state involved or, if he is unsuccessful there, in the Supreme Court of the United States. However, he cannot later attack the judgment on jurisdictional grounds if he does not avail himself of those remedies, or if the judgment is affirmed, or if the appellate court or the Supreme Court of the United States declines to consider the case. See Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association, 283 U.S. 522 , 51 S.Ct. 517 , 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931); see also Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 , 68 S.Ct. 1087 , 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948); Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25 , 37 S.Ct. 492 , 61 L.Ed. 966 (1917).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“fact that the decision of [the Alabama Supreme Court] may have been based on a legal theory neither briefed nor argued does not render the decision any less binding under principles of issue preclusion than would be the case had the decision been erroneous on the facts or law, or been rendered without any written opinion whatever. [wjhether the trial court of Alabama had personal jurisdiction over Baker was an issue squarely presented to the Alabama Supreme Court and that court has decided the issue, correctly or not, adverse to Baker’s contention. A foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida, even as to a question of the rendering court’s jurisdiction, when that question has been expressly litigated and decided by the rendering court.”
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.