Conrad v. Hazen’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
12 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Furbush v. McKittrick (2003), Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C. (2010)
12 district · 25 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 Lakeman v. LaFrance · Appeal of Astro Spectacular, Inc. · Rowe v. John Deere · Gardner v. City of Concord · McCollum v. D'Arcy
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Whether plaintiffs’ claims against GZA and the Samuel Eastman defendants, which are based on events occurring prior to July 1,1986, but which were not discovered until July 29, 1986, are governed by the three-year statute of limitations in RSA 508:4, I, which became effective on July 1, 1986, and which applies “to all causes of action arising on or after July 1, 1986.” 2. Whether, based on the facts appearing in the record below, GZA owed a duty in tort to the purchasers of the property — the BFM plaintiffs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A cause of action, therefore, arises once all the necessary elements are present. In the case of torts, it would be when causal negligence is coupled with harm to the plaintiff. While the action may not “accrue” until the plaintiff should reasonably know of the damage, it has arisen. We hold, therefore, that a plaintiff who alleges an injury based on a defendant’s conduct that occurred prior to July 1, 1986, but where either the injury or its cause was not discovered until sometime after that date, would have the benefit of the six-year statute of limitations and the common law discovery rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Draper v. Brennan“no unfair surprise and plaintiffs had ample opportunity to provide the court with any relevant information outside the pleadings, and in fact, did so,” court may convert motion to dismiss to summary judgment motion without prior notice to parties). 2 . This definition of accrual is generally referred to as the”
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.