Wilt v. Smack’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Combs II Cta II v. International Insurance Company (2004), Artis v. District of Columbia (2018)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Cope v. Anderson · Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co. · Rosenzweig v. Heller · 142 Ohio St. 113 - Greulich v. Monnin
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Clearly the tenor of these decisions is that grounds for dismissal which do not touch the merits of a controversy are within the spirit, if not the letter, of the (saving statute) ... so that, after dismissal on such a ground, institution of a second action is permissible despite the intervention of the period of limitations ... A liberal construction of the Delaware statute therefore seems authorized, and it leads to the conclusion that the rights of the plaintiff, who filed a timely action which was dismissed on a ground unrelated to the merits, should be preserved notwithstanding the intervention of the bar of the statute of limitations.” Wilt v. Smack, supra, 147 F.Supp. at 703 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under this provision, the United States District Court in Delaware, in lieu of ordering dismissal, could have transferred the case to this district and thus preserved the action against the intervention of the bar of limitations statute. Indeed, the interests of justice would appear to require transfer rather than dismissal where the latter would terminate rights without a hearing on the merits. The District Court of Delaware evidently concluded that plaintiff’s rights were protected by the Journey’s Account Statute and that its dismissal of the action would not, therefore, prejudice plaintiff.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.