Bauserman v. Blunt’s Empirical Analysis
147 U.S. 647 · 1893
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 37 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 341 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2008 · most notably DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1983), Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1945)
119 federal appellate · 37 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Huntington v. Attrill · Norton v. Shelby County · Southern Pac Co v. Denton · William M'Elmoyle for the Use of Isaac Bailey v. John J Cohen · Kirby v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad
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 341 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the absence of express statute or controlling adjudication to the contrary two general rules are well settled: (1) When the statute of limitations has once begun to run, its operation is not suspended by a subsequent disability to sue. * * * (2) The bar of the statute cannot be postponed by the failure of the creditor to avail himself of any means within his power to prosecute or to preserve his claim.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That decision was evidently deliberately considered and carefully stated, with the purpose of finally putting at rest a question on which some doubt had existed. It is supported by satisfactory reason, and is in accord with well-settled principles, and there is no previous adjudication’ of that court to the contrary. In every point of view, therefore, it should be accepted by this court as conclusively settling that the operation of the statute of limitations of Kansas is suspended after the death of the debtor for the 50 days only, during which the creditor could not apply for the appointment of an administrator, or, at most, for a reasonable time after the expiration of the 50 days.””
2 later decisions 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.