Broyles v. Reilly’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2010
16 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 547 So. 2d 275 - Stakley v. Allstate Ins. Co. · 576 So. 2d 1377 - Collins Ex Rel. Burton v. Skinner · 617 So. 2d 850 - Wilkins v. Palumbo · 599 So. 2d 277 - McCorkle v. Fast
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this district, Broyles is the primary case addressing the presence of videographers and attorneys at compulsory medical examinations. Broyles held that the burden of proof to show why counsel and a videographer or court reporter should not be present at a plaintiff's compulsory medical examination is on the party opposing their presence. To satisfy this burden, the examining doctor must provide case-specific reasons why their presence would disrupt the examination. Once this test is satisfied, the party seeking to exclude third persons from the examination must prove at an evidentiary hearing conducted by the trial court that no other qualified physician can be located in the area who would be willing to perform the examination....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would take an exceptional circumstance to permit anyone other than a videographer or court reporter and the plaintiff's attorney to be present on behalf of the plaintiff at a compulsory examination held pursuant to rule 1.360.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]bsent any valid reason to prohibit the presence of a patient's counsel or other representative, their presence should be allowed. The burden of proof rests with the party opposing third party attendance to show why the court should deny the examinee's right to have counsel, a physician or other representative present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.