green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1939 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1939
1982
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vining v. Segal
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In this case, as in Patten, 102 Fla. at 610, 136 So. at 356, an indeterminable part of the account funds was received for Se-gal’s personal services, but another indeterminable part represents payments for other charges normally imposed for professional services.
cited
Cited "see"
Killian v. Lawson
See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 353 (1931); Farland Loan & Savings Co. v. Pittman, 108 Fla. 442 , 146 So. 554 (1933); Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 792 .
cited
Cited "see"
Elvine v. Public Finance Co.
See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 353 (1931); Farland Loan & Savings Co. v. Pittman, 108 Fla. 442 , 146 So. 554 (1933); Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla. 1954, 76 So.2d 792 .
cited
Cited "see"
France v. Ross
See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 353 ; Bowen v. Johnson, 221 Minn. 99 , 21 N.W.2d 225 .
cited
Cited "see"
Slatcoff v. Dezen
See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 353 and Carter's Adm'rs v. Carter, 20 Fla. 558 , 51 Am.Rep. 618 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Wolf v. Commander
(2×)
See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 316 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance
See also Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603 , 136 So. 353 (1931).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DeSoto Beach Improvement Company, a Corporation, G. C. Sutliff, Ida Y. Babcock, a Widow, Roy F. Roberts, Sheriff of Brevard County, Florida, and Ralph C. Boswell, Appellants, vs. D. P. Sias, Appellee
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 28, 1931.
Maguire Voorhis, for Appellants;
Dickinson Dickinson, for Appellee.
Buford, Ellis, Brown.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Orders herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there are no errors in the said Orders; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Orders of the Circuit Court be, and the same are hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.