Brister v. Wray-Dickinson Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1955
8 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 The Harrisburg · Wooden v. West. N. Y. & Penn. Railroad · Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co. · Hill v. Board of Supervisors · Aultman Taylor Co. v. . Syme
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a statute creates a right of action, and stipulates the delay within which that right is to be executed, the delay thus fixed is not, properly speaking, one of prescription, but it is one of peremption. Statutes of prescription simply bar the remedy. Statutes of peremption destroy the cause of action itself. That is to say, after the limit of time expires the cause of action no longer exists; it is lost. Taylor v. [Cranberry Iron &] Coal Co., 94 N.C. 525 ; Cooper v. Lyons, 9 Lea [Tenn.], 596.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in Sections 17 and 18 of this Act. Where, however, such payments have been made in any case, said limitations shall not take”
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.