Willard v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis
164 U.S. 502 · 1896
Citation profile
110 federal appellate · 32 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Penn Mut Life Ins Co v. City of Austin (1898), Hays v. Port of Seattle (1920)
110 federal appellate · 32 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Sturges v. Crowninshield · Campbell v. Holt · Pritchard Ex'X v. Norton · Dennick v. Railroad Co. · Johnston v. Standard Mining Co.
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule in respect of limitations must also be borne in mind, that if a plaintiff mistakes his remedy, in the absence of any statutory provision saving his right, or where, from any cause, a plaintiff becomes nonsuit, or the action abates or is dismissed, and, during the pendency of the action, the limitation runs, the remedy is barred.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a plaintiff mistakes his remedy, in the absence of any statutory provisions saving his rights, or where from any cause ... the action abates or is dismissed, and, during the pendency of the action, the limitation runs, the remedy is barred.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Bat tbe recognized doctrine of courts of eauity to withhold relief from those who have delayed the assertion of their claims for an unreasonable length of time may be applied in the discretion of the court, even though the laches are not pleaded or the bill demurred to. Sullivan v. Portland & Kennebec Railroad, 94 U. S. 806 , 811 [ 24 L. Ed. 324 ]; Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391 , 394 [ 1 Sup. Ct. 350 , 27 L. Ed. 219 ]; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87 , 95 [ 17 L. Ed. 836 ].””
4 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.