Groover v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Haliburton v. Singletary (1997), 288 So. 2d 526 - Deemer v. Hallett Pontiac, Inc. (1974)
58 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 Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works · Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co. v. Williams · Jones v. McConnon & Co. · United American Insurance v. Oak · State Ex Rel. Davis v. Tyler
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court is committed to the general proposition that a successor judge may not correct errors of law committed by his predecessor and hence he cannot review and reverse on the merits and on the same facts the final orders and decrees of his predecessor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have the view that if the Chancellor who entered the final decree is available and willing to act on a petition for rehearing then the matter should not be acted upon by another judge. However, if the original Chancellor is unable by virtue of death, disability or other equivalent event, or is unwilling by reason of recusation of other cause to consider the rehearing petition, then a successor-Chancellor may consider it under such circumstances. If the petition for rehearing is merely a reargument on points and facts considered by the original Chancellor, then the successor-Chancellor is without authority on such basis to reverse his predecessor. Such a petition for rehearing should be denied.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * "In Smith v. Mobley, 95 Fla. 829 , 116 So. 760 , a case involving the reversal of a final decree earlier entered by a circuit judge of another circuit sitting as a visiting circuit judge, this Court held that while rehearings are authorized in chancery causes, when parties are aggrieved by a decree an appeal should be taken rather than application made to another circuit judge, where no matters are presented that should be adjudicated by a circuit judge. The petition for rehearing upon which the decree was reversed by the resident circuit judge alleged that certain items were not allowed in the final decree of accounting, although they were `proved by undisputed testimony.' Thus the petition for rehearing did no more than take issue with the Court on the correctness of its finding and decision in its final decree. The case is authority for the rule that such is not a proper matter to be presented to another circuit judge but is a matter properly reviewable by appeal. The rule would appear to be otherwise with respect to interlocutory orders or decrees." * * *”
2 later decisions 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.