Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 695 So. 2d 383 - Commerce v. Equity

695 So. 2d 383 - Commerce v. Equity’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
7
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Dj Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enterprises, Inc. (2001), DCB Construction Co. v. Central City Development Co. (1998)

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions

3301997200020102020decided

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 Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier · Hazen v. Cobb-Vaughan Motor Co. · Melvin v. State · 587 So. 2d 1323 - Roe v. CITY INVESTING/GENERAL DEV. CORP. · Morrisville Lumber Co., Inc. v. Okcuoglu

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

  1. “The elements of a cause of action for a quasi contract are that: (1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; (3) the defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred and (4) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “examine and interpret the parties' conduct to give definition to their unspoken agreement.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] common form of contract implied in fact is where one party has performed services at the request of another without discussion of compensation. These circumstances justify the inference of a promise to pay a reasonable amount for the service. The enforceability of this obligation turns on the implied promise, not on whether the defendant has received something of value. A contract implied in fact can be enforced even where a defendant has received nothing of value.”
    4 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.