81 So. 2d 645 - Herring v. Eiland’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 1993 · most notably Germann v. Matriss (1970), 236 So. 2d 180 - Glaab v. Caudill (1970)
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co., Inc. v. Harper · Cormier v. Williams · Fields v. Fields · Madison v. Robinson · 63 So. 2d 258 - Embrey v. Southern Gas & Electric Corp.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““plainly showed either that the defendant had not been drinking excessively prior to the time the parties set out on their trip, or that to whatever extent he had consumed liquor or failed to obtain proper rest, these facts were known to Elsie Herring, who thereafter, without warning or objection, embarked upon the expedition and slept throughout the trip, and consequently, by assuming the risks of the journey, was quilty of contributory negligence which would bar recovery. Henley v. Carter, Fla., 63 So.2d 192 [ 44 A.L.R.2d 1339 ]; Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, 142 Fla. 27 , 194 So. 353 . “(3) At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the plaintiff did not present affidavits in support of the genuineness of the complaint, or affidavits in opposition to the motion showing that the plaintiff could not ‘for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition.’ See Rule 1.36(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, F.S.A., Vol. 3. Therefore, all the trial court had before it at the hearing were the pleadings in the cause and the depositions of the defendant and his wife. These depositions, which were proper for consideration, under Rule 1.36(b) and (c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, supra, did not tend to disclose gross negligence on the part of the defendant; indeed, did not make out even a case of simple negligence. Under these circumstances it was perfectly proper for the trial court to enter the summary judgment in favor of the defen”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“all the facts regarding the transaction.”
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.