Zuck v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Tworivers v. Lewis (1999), Logerquist v. Danforth (1996)
14 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Wilson v. Garcia · Williams v. Vincent · Sato v. Van Denburgh · Webster v. Culbertson
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a person entitled to bring an action ... is at the time the cause of action accrues imprisoned, the period of such disability shall exist only until such time as the person imprisoned discovers the right to bring the action or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the right to bring the action, whichever occurs first, and such person shall have the same time after the disability ceases to exist which is allowed to others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jennison v. Lewis · Vega v. Morris“a prisoner had the same time others would have to bring a claim, from that date, or at a later date if that was when the prisoner first reasonably discovered his or her right to bring the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Plaintiffs remaining claim ... could have been time barred as early as August 1985 if he was aware of his right to bring the action when the amended statute took effect in August 1984. However, summary judgment on the statutory duty claim would need to be supported by a finding of his awareness; in the absence of such a finding in the present record we must remand that claim to the trial court for determination of when plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the existence of this claim. See Sato v. Van Denburgh, 123 Ariz. 225 , 599 P.2d 181 (1979). The applicable one-year [statute of limitations] period ... should apply from that point to determine whether the claim was barred in February 1986 when plaintiff filed his complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vega v. Morris
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.