Smith v. Leaman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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.

1. “The face of the record and affidavit demonstrate failure to comply with the statutory notice prerequisites. No return receipt was executed by the defendant. Moreover, the certified letter returned "UNCLAIMED" and the second notice sent by regular mail and returned "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS" do not reflect that appellant intentionally failed or refused to claim the notices. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn that the failure to deliver process was caused by the defendant rejecting the mail. Consequently, the statutory requirement was not met as no return receipt for the certified mail was obtained, nor can an inference of intentional rejection be made from the record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hernandez v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. · 32 So. 3d 695 - Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

2. “the failure of delivery of process was not caused by the defendant-addressee's rejection of the mail and where such failure might have resulted from a cause not chargeable to the defendant, then the statutory requirements have not been met and service of process is insufficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 932 So. 2d 591 - Wise v. Warner

3. “the courts have created an exception to the requirement that the plaintiff file the defendant's return receipt for those situations in which the defendant is actively refusing or rejecting the substituted service of process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hernandez v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO.