Vance v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis
108 U.S. 514 · 1883
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 7 district · 134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), United States v. Locke (1985)
41 federal appellate · 7 district · 134 state decisions — followed in 32 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sturges v. Crowninshield · Terry v. Anderson · Sohn v. Waterson · Louisiana v. New Orleans
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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The exemptions from the operation of statutes of limitations, usually accorded to infants ..., do not rest upon any general doctrine of the law ... but in every instance upon express language in those statutes giving them time, after majority ... to assert their rights.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right of the State to prescribe the time within which existing rights shall be prosecuted, and the means by and conditions on which they may be continued in force, is, we think, undoubted. Otherwise, where no-term of prescription exists at the inception of a contract, it would continue in perpetuity, and all laws fixing a limitation upon it would be abortive. Now, it is elementary that the State may establish, alter, lengthen, or shorten the- period of prescription of existing rights, provided that a reasonable time be given in future for complying with the statute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The case of Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628 [, 5 Otto 628 , 24 L.Ed. 365 (1877)], presents, in the terse language of the Chief Justice of this court, both the rule, the reason for it, and the limitation which the constitutional provision implies. This court, he says, ‘has often decided that statutes of limitation affecting existing rights are not unconstitutional, if a reasonable time is given for the enforcement of the action before the bar takes effect.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.