Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2014
14 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 Williams v. State · 475 So. 2d 682 - Florida Bar Standard Jury Instructions Civil 85-1 · 446 So. 2d 97 - Mora v. City of Fort Lauderdale · 236 So. 2d 108 - Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette · 558 So. 2d 93 - Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp.
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.
“[I]t is undisputed that Wal-Mart argued to the trial court that under the dictates of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 485 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3), the items and information requested are nondiscoverable work product. There is no evidence of record that any documentation was presented to the trial court to support the assertion that the items requested and the statements to be produced constitute work product. In fact, Wal-Mart argues that its stated objection and assertion of work product privilege are sufficient in and of themselves to invoke the qualified privilege. It is undisputed that Wal-Mart did not present any additional argument in support of its position. [[Image here]] ... Wal-Mart cannot make a blanket statement that these items were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are protected from disclosure without presenting evidence to support its claim. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., v. McGann, 402 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Kenleigh Assocs. v. Harris-Intertype Corp., 279 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial court cannot be held to have abused its discretion when Wal-Mart failed to meet its burden of proof. The petition is denied as to the requests for production which are the subject of this petition.”
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.