726 So. 2d 1044 - Lee v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably 870 So. 2d 1044 - Williams v. Memorial Medical Center (2004), 785 So. 2d 101 - Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc. (2001)
29 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 685 So. 2d 691 - Hayes v. Autin · Hayes v. Autin · 582 So. 2d 1272 - Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp. · 679 So. 2d 477 - NAB Nat. Resources v. Willamette Industries, Inc. · 594 So. 2d 1332 - Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This `pointing out' should be more than a bare assertion, as the mover still bears the burden of proof, which includes the burden of persuasion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, ... under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians, ... within the involved medical specialty. (2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill. (3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.