Deen v. Quantum Resources, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 72 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. Florida Power Corp. · 420 So. 2d 587 - Gulfstream Land & Development Corp. v. Wilkerson · 594 So. 2d 755 - Cartier v. Florida Power & Light Co.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the liability to secure compensation which gives the employer immunity from suit as a third party tort-feasor. His immunity from suit is commensurate with his liability for securing compensation-no more and no less. 72 So.2d at 287 (emphasis in original). This broad language can be argued in support of either side of this case. Later, the court used more limiting language in Gulfstream Land & Development Corp. v. Wilkerson, 420 So.2d 587 (Fla.1982), when it stated: The common law right of recovery from third parties in tort should not be abridged unless specifically waived by the workmen’s compensation statutes .... Since Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954), this Court has consistently held that immunity from suit under the workmen’s compensation statutes follows the statutory liability for providing such coverage. 420 So.2d at 589 (emphasis supplied). I agree with Deen that FP & L, having no “statutory liability,” but only liability voluntarily assumed by contract, is not entitled to the immunity benefits of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“I agree that FP & L is a “carrier” as defined in section 440.02(3), Florida Statutes (1991), and has the benefit of all immunities granted to “carriers” under chapter 440. In this case, however, it is both a “carrier,” with the rights and responsibilities as such, and a landowner, with its attendant rights and responsibilities. The legal status of the “carrier” and of the landowner are independent of one another and do not interact in any manner. The alleged acts of negligence for which FP & L is being sued here are in its capacity as the landowner and are not affected by its “carrier” immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.