Love v. Hannah’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Longbottom v. Swaby (1968), 386 So. 2d 1259 - Marks v. Delcastillo (1980)
1 federal appellate · 24 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 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bridgeman · Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works · Benoit v. Miami Beach Electric Co. · Serkissian v. Newman · Wolfe v. State of Florida
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is generally true that on appeal the parties are restricted to the theory of a case as tried in the lower court. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 241(a), p. 465. This principle has certain well recognized exceptions, one of which is that if an error in the lower court affects fundamental rights, it may be raised for the first time on appeal." (citing 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 242 p. 485.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * In Benoit v. Miami Beach Electric Co., 85 Fla. 395 [396], 400, 96 So. 158, 159 , this Court held that, ‘The existence or nonexistence of any one having the precedent right of action under the statute enters into the very siibstance of the right of action itself when instituted by any of the named classes of persons after the first; and, when the suit is brought by any of these different classes, except the widow or husband, the declaration, in order to show a cause of action should affirmatively show the nonexistence of any other person having a precedent right of action over the plaintiff under the statute.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Birdsong v. Hendry““The primary and controlling question in this appeal is whether an administrator may maintain a suit under the wrongful death statute, Sections 768.01 and 768.02, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S. A., in the absence of an affirmative showing of the non-existence of any other person having a precedent right of action under the statute * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Birdsong v. Hendry
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.