Bruno v. Destiny Transp., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 475 So. 2d 666 - Moore v. Morris · 246 So. 2d 98 - Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co. · 66 So. 2d 214 - Yost v. Miami Transit Co. · 442 So. 2d 953 - Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Abernathy · 478 So. 2d 855 - Crawford v. Florida Steel 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought. A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law. If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business... and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[C]onflicting inferences from the record about intent or understanding are best left for the jury and [are] not appropriate for summary judgment.”
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.