967 So. 2d 1114 - Saenz v. Campos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) name the party or parties making the proposal and the party or par- . ties to whom the proposal is being made; (B) state that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action in which the proposal is served, subject to Subdivision (F); (C) state with particularity any relevant conditions; (D) state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal; (E) state with particularity the amount proposed to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any; (F) state whether the proposal includes attorneys’ fees and whether attorneys’ fees are part of the legal claim; and (G) include a certificate of service in the form required by rule 1.080.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sherman v. Savastano

2. “A latent ambiguity—as distinct from a patent ambiguity—arises 'where the language employed is clear and intelligible and suggests but a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact or extraneous evidence creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice among two or more possible meanings.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Pollinger

3. “proposal fails to satisfy the `particularity' requirement if an ambiguity within the proposal could reasonably affect the offeree's decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Pollinger