SAFETY HARBOR v. Communications Workers’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on 450 So. 2d 217 - Holly v. Auld · 353 So. 2d 108 - Pasco Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Florida Public Emp. Rel. Comm. · 509 So. 2d 268 - Streeter v. Sullivan · 329 So. 2d 257 - Department of Legal Affairs v. Rogers · 609 So. 2d 1315 - Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Huntington Nat. Bank
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An agency's construction of a statute is not entitled to deference where the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law. See Pensacola Jr. College v. Public Employees Rels. Comm'n, 400 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist. v. National Union of Hosp. & Health Care Employees, 429 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), appeal dismissed, 452 So.2d 568 (Fla.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and no further review of legislative history is necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“insofar as such construction is harmonious with the spirit and policy of Florida legislation on the subject.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.