721 So. 2d 710 - Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The entitlement of either the consumer or manufacturer to a trial de novo appeal proceeding in the circuit court after completion of this mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure respects the access-to-courts provision in the Florida Constitution, due process, and separation of powers.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 921 So. 2d 702 - BMW of North America v. ROTTA · 835 So. 2d 1235 - TA Enterprises, Inc. v. Olarte, Inc.

2. “the intent of the Legislature to provide the statutory procedures whereby a consumer may receive a replacement motor vehicle, or a full refund, for a motor vehicle which cannot be brought into conformity with the warranty provided for in this chapter.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 780 So. 2d 937 - King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale · 772 So. 2d 7 - Holzhauer-Mosher v. Ford Motor Co.

3. “"In [ Pitsirelos ], this Court examined section 681.1095(4), part of Florida's Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, which requires parties in motor vehicle warranty disputes to submit to arbitration before filing an action in circuit court. Section 681.1095(13) provided for a trial de novo in the circuit court for a party who appealed the arbitration award. We determined that the entitlement of either party to a trial de novo in the circuit court after completion of the mandatory arbitration respected the parties' access to courts. We noted, however, that a statutory requirement that the arbitration board's decision be presumed correct in the trial de novo would raise serious concerns as to whether such a statute would violate access to courts because it would diminish the right to have the ultimate decision in a case made by a court. "[The PIP statute] does not provide for a trial de novo in the circuit court. Section 627.736(5) states that the provisions of chapter 682, Florida's Arbitration Code, shall apply. Under section 682.20, parties may appeal an arbitration award only in limited circumstances, and courts attach a high degree of conclusiveness to the award. The limited review and the conclusiveness attached to the arbitration award without the right of a trial de novo diminishes the right to have the ultimate decision in a case made by a court. As we noted in Pitsirelos , this violates medical providers' access to courts." [c.o.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 835 So. 2d 1235 - TA Enterprises, Inc. v. Olarte, Inc.