Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 SO2D 733 - Meadows v. Edwards

Meadows v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 357 So. 2d 1048 - Axelrod v. Califano (1978), 164 So. 2d 525 - John K. Brennan Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co. (1964)

29 state decisions

701955196019701980199020002010decided

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 Toebelman v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. · Weisser v. Mursam Shoe Corp. · Grobart v. Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures · 71 So. 2d 251 - Johnson v. Studstill · Burley v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co.

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In order to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it must be so undoubtedly false as not to be subject to a genuine issue of fact. The motion should be tested by the same standards as a motion for a summary judgment in the following respects. Such procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the term `genuine issue' is not meant to be necessarily confined to a pleading or paper issue. To use the language of Judge Cardozo, later Justice, made in reference to the law applicable to motions for summary judgment, 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2d 2028, to the effect that the very object of a motion for judgment because of sham pleadings `is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from what is genuine or substantial, so that only the latter may subject a suitor to the burden of trial.' * * *"”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In order to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it must be so undoubtedly false as not to be subject to a genuine issue of fact.... A motion to strike a pleading as false should not be granted under the circumstances when a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a summary judgment could not properly be granted. If there is any substantial evidence to support the party against whom the motion is made, then the motion should be denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a pleading may be stricken as a sham only where it is shown to be palpably or inherently false. A hearing on a motion to strike is not a hearing to try the issues but to determine whether there are any genuine issues to be tried.”
    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.