828 So. 2d 952 - Ex Parte Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The theory of prosecution is based on a false premise. The false premise is that the contract between Maddox and the owner required Maddox to devote his draws to payment for the materials used on this job. The only pertinent provisions of the contract are: “ 1. The contractor agrees to furnish and pay for all labor and materials necessary to construct those certain improvements on the premises located at 143 Myrtlewood.... “ ‘2. The contractor agrees to do the foregoing work in a good and workmanlike manner and to deliver same to the owners free from any claims or liens.... [[Image here]] “‘11. The owners shall make payments [ (the draws) ] to the contractor, following each calendar month after the date of commencement of construction, according to itemized list of invoices for materials, labor, subcontractors statements plus overhead and profit, no later than the 10th of each month. “ ‘12. The contractor shall submit evidence satisfactory to the owner that all payrolls, materials bills, and other indebt[ed]ness connected with the work have be[e]n paid in full.’ “While the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 12 make the contractor ultimately responsible for paying for the materials, no provision of the contract restricts the contractor in his use of the particular draws paid to him by the owner pursuant to paragraph 11. The draws became due to Maddox, not the suppliers, according to the progress in the construction. But for a few exceptions, the materials had been incorporate”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brannon v. State

2. ““The theory of the prosecution is that Maddox’s [a general contractor] cost-plus contract for the construction of a house required him to devote the draws he received from the owner to payment for the materials used in the construction of the house; that he did not pay some of the material suppliers; that he allowed some of his payments to suppliers to be credited to his debts from other jobs instead of his debts for this job; and that he had thereby ‘obtain[ed] or exert[ed] unauthorized control over [the] checks or lawful currency constituting the draws paid him by the owner, who eventually paid some of the material suppliers herself and sued Maddox in a civil action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brannon v. State