Emmer v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 208 So. 2d 101 - Hendricks v. Dailey · 229 So. 2d 850 - Stirling v. Sapp · 308 So. 2d 540 - CITY CAB COMPANY OF ORLANDO, INC. v. Green · 714 So. 2d 620 - Bradshaw v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. · 497 So. 2d 719 - East Bay Raceway v. Parham
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As Ms. Emmer approached the intersection at 40th Avenue, she came to a complete stop in the left turn lane to permit the westbound traffic to pass and clear before making a left turn. At some point, a car traveling westbound in the left lane stopped and its driver motioned for Ms. Emmer to make her left turn. At trial, Ms. Emmer acknowledged that the unidentified motorist who summoned her to turn was not a police officer and she also admitted that she could not see the westbound traffic traveling in the remaining right lane. She thus acknowledged that no one in the remaining right lane similarly stopped and yielded the right-of-way for her to turn left. When Ms. Emmer proceeded to make a left turn she never stopped to check the status of traffic in the westbound right lane. As she entered the westbound right lane, while making a left turn, her car was struck by Ms. Perez. According to Ms. Perez's testimony, she did not see Ms. Emmer's car prior to the accident because the car in the left lane had blocked her view.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Howell v. Winkle
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.