950 So. 2d 895 - Touchet v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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.

1. “The plaintiff, Purvis Touchet, was a sales manager at Hampton Mitsubishi, a car dealership owned by the defendant, Mark Hampton, for approximately three years. Touchet testified that he briefly left his employment with the dealership but subsequently returned to his former job position. He testified that his employment was terminated during the summer of 2002. According to Hampton, the parting was amicable. However, he testified that in October 2002, he received a telephone call from Touchet in which “he basically was sort of making fun of our business because our business had gone down.” Hampton stated that he hung up the telephone and that Touchet called back later that day. Hampton did not speak with him. Hampton testified that when he spoke with Touchet again, Tou-chet cursed him, threatened him, and told him that he knew where he lived. According to Hampton, Touchet continued to call and when he did not answer, Touchet left him several threatening voice mail messages, three of which were left on October 13, 2002. Hampton testified that on October 19, 2002, he went to Jackie Edgar RV Center, Touchet’s place of employment, “[bjecause it was a public place, and I felt it was the safest place to talk to him.” Touchet was not there. According to Hampton, he returned to Jackie Edgar RV Center on October 22, 2002 to “tell [Touchet] to quit harassing me and to ask him to stop calling me.” Hampton asked if Touchet was in, and someone pointed him towards Touchet’s office. Hampton ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Touchet v. Hampton

2. “This Court makes the following factual findings, and warns that these findings contain the offensive utterances of the plaintiff. On Sunday, 13 October 2002, Touchet called Hampton’s home on three separate occasions and left threatening and offensive messages. The most significant portions of those messages are: the first message that occurred on Sunday, October 13th at 2:41 [p.m.] contained a significant amount of information, but the most significant was the following language: “I am going to f — king murder your ass.” Then there was a subsequent message on that same date at 2:45 p.m. which, again, contained lots of threatening and offensive language, the most significant of which was: “Anytime you want to f — k with me, let me know.” Then there was another message that was recorded — all these messages were recorded on a voice mail recording system on Hampton’s phone — this third message occurred, was delivered at 2:48 p.m., and, again, contains lots of offensive language, the most significant of which — the most significant because of his threat is: “Let me and you come meet me somewhere you f — king piece of shit.” Then on Sunday, October 19, 2002, [sic] Hampton visited Touchet at his place of employment to tell Touchet to quit harassing [ ^Hampton and stop calling Hampton. Touchet’s office within his place of employment has glass walls. When Hampton entered Touchet’s office Touchet was seated in his chair with the back of his chair facing Hampton. Tou-chet rapidly turne”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Touchet v. Hampton

3. “In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 977 So. 2d 312 - Jab of Oakdalem, LLC v. Oakwood Inn Development Corp.