green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sims v. Brown
Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 282-83 , 139 So. 886, 890 (1932).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD v. Matthews
Co. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886, 888 (1932).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Frank
"The chief object in introducing evidence is to secure a rational ascertainment of facts; therefore, facts should not be submitted to the jury, unless they are logically relevant to the issues." Atlantic Coast Line Railway v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 282-83 , 139 So. 886, 890 (1932).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
Co. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886, 890 (1932).
cited
Cited "see"
Beerman v. Rollar
See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886 (1932). 563 So.2d at 173 .
cited
Cited "see"
Secada v. Weinstein
See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886 (1932).
discussed
Cited "see"
Atkins Aviation, Inc. v. Scottish Lion Insurance Co.
See Atlantic Coast IÁne E.R. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886 (1932) (syllabus by court, para. no. 1); Central Nat’l Bank v. Muskat Corp., 430 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Sabin v. Lowe’s of Fla., Inc., 404 So.2d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Security Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Purdy v. Gulf Breeze Enterprises, Inc.
See generally Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886 (1932); Cappucio, Subrogation in Florida, 21 U.Miami L.Rev. 240, 247-49 (1966).
William H. Robinson, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Ebie Eavey, Executrix, Etc., Appellees
v.
Ebie Eavey, Executrix, Etc., Appellees
J. C. Davant, for Appellants;
J. L. Jolly and Ralph Richards, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM. —.
Published
—TMs is an appeal from an order and decree of the judge of the Circuit Court overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint, and the cause having been heretofore submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 is no error in the said decree. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Terrell and Davis, J.J., and Johnson, Circuit Judge, concur.