Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 856 SO2D 222 - Hughes v. Olin Corp.

Hughes v. Olin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 595 So. 2d 624 - Lima v. Schmidt · 828 So. 2d 502 - Campo v. Correa · 601 So. 2d 1355 - Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. · 509 So. 2d 420 - Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp. · 593 So. 2d 351 - Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc.

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. “Dr. Lipka [plaintiff's] remarked that there was a question from a histologic standpoint about whether Mr. Hughes had mesothelio-ma even with the symptoms presented by Mr. Hughes in April and May, but the disease’s later progression established that the diagnosis of mesothelioma was correct. A review of Mr. Hughes' medical history in April and May of 2000 shows that the diagnosis for Mr. Hughes went from probable cancer that was strongly suspected to be mesothelioma, to adenocarcinoma, to a final diagnosis of mesothelioma.... Under such circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Mr. Hughes to delay bringing suit until May 4, 2001, which was within one year from June 9, 2000, the date on which he learned that he had mesothelioma. Accordingly, the trial court was clearly wrong in granting Olin's exception of prescription.”
    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.