Ham v. Dunmire’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
74 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 443 So. 2d 944 - Mercer v. Raine · 629 So. 2d 817 - Kozel v. Ostendorf · 401 So. 2d 1310 - Binger v. King Pest Control · 569 So. 2d 1271 - Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and 6) whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage“Express findings are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than one interpretation.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he trial court's failure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard”
5 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.