Metrolimo, Inc. v. Lamm’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2017
6 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 651 So. 2d 89 - Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins · 417 So. 2d 306 - Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield · 293 So. 2d 795 - Campbell v. Bellman · 637 So. 2d 308 - Ludwig v. Ladner · Nuta v. Genders
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court announced Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995). The court there held that a permanent injury is not a prerequisite to recovering future economic damages. Id. at 91 . "[T]he appropriate test is to permit the recovery of future economic damages when such damages are established with reasonable certainty." Id. That being so, the trial court was correct in overruling Metrolimo's objection. Metrolimo next argues that assuming that an award of damages for future medical expenses and nursing was permissible, the evidence was insufficient. We disagree. Evidence was presented regarding the cost of nursing care which the plaintiff currently receives. Evidence was also presented regarding the present day cost of other care alternatives, such as an adult congregate living facility. The amount awarded by the jury is within the range testified to by the plaintiff's witnesses. Metrolimo contends that the evidence was insufficient under this court's decision in Nuta v. Genders, 617 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). That case found that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the question of, inter alia, future medical expenses. However, in that case, "[n]one of the doctors testified that [plaintiff] needed future medical treatment." Id. at 331 . Without an indication of what further medical treatment the plaintiff would need, the jury did not have a basis to make an award. Here, by co”
2 later decisions 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.