Glebus v. Fillmore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. ““Previous decisions in the federal courts as to this point apparently have turned on a distinction as to the wording of the various state statutes of limitations. 1 Barron and Holtzoff Sec. 163; 2 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.) Sec. 3.07. Where, as an integral part of the applicable statute of limitations, the legislature has specified what must be done to bring an action within the period of limitations, the courts have held that the statute is not tolled until the action is brought as the statute directed. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530 , 69 S.Ct. 1233 , 93 L.Ed. 1520 ; Zuckerman v. McCulley, 8 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 1015 ; Nola Electric Co. v. Reilly, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1948, 93 F.Supp. 164 ; cf. Krisor v. Watts, D.C.E.D.Wis.1945, 61 F.Supp. 845 . But where the statute merely specifies that the action may not be brought but within a specified period, without specifying by what acts an action is ‘brought’, federal courts have said that, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3, the filing of the complaint tolls the statute. Cf. Isaacks V. Jeffers, 10 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 26 , certiorari denied 323 U.S. 781 , 65 S.Ct. 270 , 89 L.Ed. 624 , and cases cited therein; Bomar v. Keyes, 2 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 136 , certiorari denied 332 U.S. 825 , 68 S.Ct. 166 , 92 L.Ed. 400 , rehearing denied 332 U.S. 845 , 68 S.Ct. 266 , 92 L.Ed. 416 . The courts have proceeded thus on the theory that unless the statute of limitations specifically provides by what procedure an action must be s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Byrd v. Bates