Lamb v. Matetzschk’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fabre v. Marin · 374 So. 2d 490 - Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards · 849 So. 2d 276 - Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc. · 663 So. 2d 606 - TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak · 863 So. 2d 210 - Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he plain language of rule 1.442(c)(3) mandates that a joint proposal for settlement differentiate between the parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“must be strictly construed because the offer of judgment statute and rule are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its own fees.”
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.