Kao v. Lauredo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that only “[a]ffirmative testimony of a 3 sudden and unexpected stop . . . is sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption” of negligence (quoting Liriano v. Gonzalez, 605 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))
• plaintiff’s sudden stop was reasonably expected “on a heavily congested city street during rush hour in stop and go traffic”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-02-17· cited 23×
• Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-06-25· cited 7×
• Tacher v. Asmus
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-10-20· cited 7×
• Lynx Transportation v. Atkinson
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-10-30· cited 5×
• Cheng v. Sirichoke
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-12-22· cited 3×
• Ferguson v. DiSalvo
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-01-03· cited 2×
• Spivak v. Shaw
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-02-10· cited 1×
• Wirth v. Mabe
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-04-29
• Angel L. Ortega v. All Dade Fences, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2024-03-06
• Nixon v. Ippolito
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2024-08-22

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pierce v. Progressive American Ins. Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-06-27· cited 23×
• Baughman v. Vann
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1980-10-29· cited 15×
• Liriano v. Gonzalez
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1992-09-29· cited 9×