Allstate Ins. Co. v. Materiale’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 472 So. 2d 1145 - Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe · 555 So. 2d 828 - Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom · Fabre v. Marin · 752 So. 2d 663 - United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Behar · Spruce Creek Dev. of Ocala v. Drew
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.
“[w]hen two offerors make a proposal for settlement to one offeree, the offeree is entitled to know the amount and terms of the offer that are attributable to each offeror in order to evaluate the offer as it pertains to that party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in [.Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) ], are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Regardless of whether such acceptance would entitle a defendant to be released by both claimants, a defendant should be allowed to evaluate each plaintiffs claim separately.”
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.