Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 So. 2d 94 - Shaffran v. Holness

93 So. 2d 94 - Shaffran v. Holness’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 475 So. 2d 666 - Moore v. Morris (1985), Humphrys v. Jarrell (1958)

46 state decisions

901957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Begnaud v. White · Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co. · Shew v. United States · 62 So. 2d 732 - Williams v. City of Lake City · 71 So. 2d 251 - Johnson v. Studstill

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

  1. “"Summary judgment or decree is permissible only where the pleadings, depositions, or admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment or decree as a matter of law. The burden of proof is upon the party moving for summary judgment or decree to show lack of a genuine issue of material fact, and all doubts as to the existence of such fact must be resolved against the movant. On failure to show such lack of a genuine issue of material fact, or if a genuine issue of material fact otherwise appears, movant's motion must be denied. It follows that summary proceedings may be used only as a vehicle for establishing whether there is a genuine issue of material fact to be determined, and the trial court may not try or determine factual issues in such proceedings. If it is disclosed that there does exist a genuine issue of material fact, the judgment or decree may not be entered. If salient facts are established beyond dispute, question then arises whether one party or the other party should be awarded judgment or decree as a matter of law, and that question is to be decided by the trial judge using the established facts as a premise. Caution and discernment should go hand in hand where the power to enter summary judgment or decree is exercised, for such a power wields a dangerous potential which could have the effect of trespass against fundamental and traditional processes for dete”
    7 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.