Leno v. Meunier’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Leo v. Hillman (1995), In re Spencer (1989)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
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 United States v. American Trucking Associations · City of Rutland v. Keiffer · Little v. Little · Merrill v. Reed · Laughlin v. McConnel
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiff may commence a new action for the same cause within one year after the determination of the original action, when the original action has been commenced within the time limited by any statute of this state, and the action has been determined for any of the following reasons: (1) Where the action is dismissed for insufficiency of process caused by unavoidable accident or by default or neglect of the officer to whom the process was committed; (2) Where the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party; (3) Where the action is defeated or avoided by the death of a party thereto; (4) Where judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on appeal on one of the grounds listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Fraud is never presumed, Century Indemnity Co. v. Mead, 121 Vt. 434, 440 , 159 A.2d 325 , and must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, Laughlin v. McConnel, 201 Pa.Super. 180 , 191 A.2d 921 , as to which the defendants had the burden of proof. “ ‘The term fraud carries different meanings’ and ‘however classified, fraud involves wrongdoing and the conscious participation of the alleged wrongdoer.’ Kendall’s Admr. v. Roseberry, 120 Vt. 498, 502 , 144 A.2d 836 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We cannot engraft upon the statute exceptions, conditions or requirements under which the saving proviso shall become forfeited or inoperative. To do so would require something in the nature of a major operation upon the long standing work of the legislature. The court would be making the law instead of administering it. Thus, if a case falls within the letter of the statute, the court has no power to attach conditions to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leo v. Hillman
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.