70 So. 2d 581 - Bryant v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Martinez v. Scanlan (1991), Kneip v. Herseth (1974)
41 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 Ready v. Safeway Rock Company · 59 So. 2d 636 - May v. Holley · Local No. 234 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of United States & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc. · Dugan v. Haige · 66 So. 2d 235 - Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before any proceeding for declaratory relief should be entertained it should be clearly made to appear that there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; that the declaration should deal with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; that some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; that there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; that the antagonistic and adverse interest are all before the court by proper process or class representation and that the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“to become a candidate for the next succeeding term. Bryant sought the declaration because he reasoned that if he ran for the unexpired term and then found himself precluded from running for the succeeding full term, he might not want to run for the unexpired term. Bryant never alleged that he would become a candidate for the unexpired term or full term. The Court concluded that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the question which Bryant presented was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“, but that he was in doubt as to whether if he sought election in 1954 and was elected for an unexpired term created by the death of the incumbent, he might thereafter seek re-election in the general election of 1956. Petitioner stated that he was”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Howard
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.