Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 918 F.2d 1516 - Browning v. Peyton

Browning v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

918 F.2d 1516 · 1990

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta (1993), United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties (1991)

37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

490199020002010decided

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 Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co. · Quinn v. Phipps · Sharp v. Kosmalski · 480 So. 2d 625 - Johnson v. Davis · 302 So. 2d 404 - Blackhawk Heat. & P. Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.

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

  1. “all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A joint venture, like a partnership, may be created by express or implied contract, and the contractual relationship must consist of the following elements: (1) a common purpose; (2) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter; (3) the right to share profits and duty to share losses, and (4) joint control or right of control. Florida courts have interpreted these requirements to preclude a finding that a partnership or joint venture exists where any factor is missing.”
    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.