Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 666 SO2D 1328 - Hall v. Lilly

Hall v. Lilly’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2006
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 381 So. 2d 385 - Kaplan v. University Lake Corp. · 354 So. 2d 1389 - Mini-Togs, Inc. v. Young · 535 So. 2d 851 - Lawson v. Lawson · Simon v. Perret · General Electric Co. v. Martin

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Lilly testified that after the separation, he paid $700.00 to Johnson each month for "child support," and that she agreed to make the loan payments. Lilly further testified that he * * * did not know that Johnson had stopped making payments for the $36,000 note. Lilly's mother testified that Johnson had informed her that the Halls told Johnson to stop making the loan payments. Johnson denied making that statement. Johnson acknowledged receiving a monthly payment * * * from Lilly. Johnson also testified that although she stopped making the loan payments because she did not have enough money, she never informed Lilly that she was not paying the loan.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, the Halls loaned money and obtained promissory notes. The debtors stopped paying in 1991 and the following year the Halls filed suit on the defaulted notes. Whatever their motive, there is no evidence that they used the process to gain a result not proper under the law. The object of the Halls' suit was to gain recognition of the mortgage and collect a debt. There is nothing illegal about this object. 27,891 at p. 4, 666 So.2d at 1332 .”
    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.