Bolduc v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining the legislative intent as to the effect of the applicability of RSA ch. 264 to the present case, it is important to consider why the Legislature thought it advisable to exclude the time when the defendant was absent from the state in computing the time limit for bringing suits as provided by our statute of limitations. RSA 508:9. The early case of Gilman v. Cutts, 23 N. H. 376 (1851), makes the purpose clear. There the court in construing a similar statute, R. S., c. 181, s. 9, said: “The conclusion, then, to which the court [has] arrived, is that any and every absence, whether temporary or otherwise, which is such that the creditor cannot, during the same, make a legal service upon the debtor, must be reckoned; that the intention of the legislature was, that all such absences should be considered . . . Id., 385 . To the same effect is Quarles v. Bickford, 64 N. H. 425 (1887), where the court reiterates this principle and says that “In order to prevent the running of the statute of limitations, the debtor’s absence from the state must be such that process cannot be so served upon him that the judgment obtained in the suit will bind him personally.” Id., 426 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 Wash. 2d 808 - Summerrise v. Stephens

2. ““ . . . Had the Legislature desired to change existing law so as to afford the plaintiff the latitude of permitting him to allow his case to drag on indefinitely at his option, even though he could get valid service upon the defendant, so long as the latter remained out of the state, it presumably would have said so . we believe the considerations in favor of (the plaintiff) are outweighed by the desirability of insuring prompt disposition of law suits while the witnesses are available and their memories reasonably fresh.” [Parenthetical matter supplied]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tarter v. Insco

3. ““There are compelling considerations of policy favoring the majority rule since to hold otherwise would allow suits to be postponed' indefinitely. In automobile cases which depend to a great degree on eye witnesses and their memories, the evil results of delay are obvious . . . ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tarter v. Insco