727 So. 2d 514 - Fox v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Holt v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT · 694 So. 2d 613 - Chance v. Chance · 669 So. 2d 622 - Barrow v. Barrow · St. Pierre v. Hirschfeld · 594 So. 2d 1028 - Huval Baking v. WORKERS'COMP. BD.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where expert testimony differs, it is the trier of fact who must determine the more credible evidence, and factual findings based upon that determination may not be overturned unless manifest error appears in the record. The fact-trier is entitled to assess the credibility and accept the opinion of an expert just as with other witnesses, unless the stated reasons of the expert are patently unsound. Of course, the effect and weight to be given such expert testimony depends upon the underlying facts and rests within the broad discretion of the trial judge. Moreover, in deciding to accept the opinion of one expert and reject the opinion of another, a trial court can virtually never be manifestly erroneous. (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hannan v. Hannan
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.