Hankey v. Yarian’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 335 So. 2d 815 - Thayer v. State · 618 So. 2d 177 - Tanner v. Hartog · 679 So. 2d 278 - Kukral v. Mekras · 633 So. 2d 9 - Patry v. Capps · 609 So. 2d 1315 - Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Huntington Nat. Bank
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and payment to the clerk of a filing fee, not to exceed $25, established by the chief judge, an automatic 90 day extension of the statute of limitations shall be granted to allow the reasonable investigation required by subsection (1). This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. No court order is required for the extension to be effective. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to revive a cause of action on which the statute of limitations has run.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“60 days or the remainder of the period of the statute of limitations, whichever is greater”). . The court held that, once a claimant files a notice of intent to litigate,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“does not run simultaneously with the separate ninety-day tolling period provided in section 766.106(4).” Hankey v. Yarian, 755 So.2d 93, 97-98 (Fla.2000). The court also opined that”
2 later decisions 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.