Murphy v. Chitty’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 482 So. 2d 486 - Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin · 65 So. 2d 736 - Steak House v. Barnett · 687 So. 2d 329 - Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc. · 110 So. 2d 397 - Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. Woods · 551 So. 2d 503 - Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The intent of the parties — as evidenced by the interrelated documents executed at the closing and the admissions of the parties at the injunction hearing — was that the agreements were dependent upon each other.... [One] contract ... specifies that Chitty cannot enforce the non-compete provision if he defaults under other terms of the agreement.”
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.