Ferguson v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he proceedings [after the enactment of a new law] shall conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such proceedings ....”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Averette v. Seabron · Commonwealth v. Moore

2. ““A great majority of opinion, and we think the better opinion, applies the same rule of construction to new or changed provisions of statutes of limitation that it applies to the construction of other statutes. In following this rule, the new enactment is held to apply to all rights or causes of action after its passage, leaving all rights or causes of action existing at the time of such passage subject to the operation of prior limitations, unless otherwise provided. Therefore, rights accrued, claims arising, proceedings instituted, orders made under the former law, or judgments rendered before the passage of an amended statute, will not be affected by it, but will be governed by the original statute, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the later statute. [Citing authorities.] ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson Service Co. v. Glaubke Construction Co. · Jones v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Von Moll

3. “All authorities appear to approve of the rule that statutes will be presumed to have been intended by the legislature to be prospective and not retrospective in their action where a retrospective effect would work injustice and disturb rights acquired under the former law. Some courts take the view that since limitation laws apply only to the remedy, they are not within the principle that statutes should be given a prospective rather than a retrospective construction.... The rule under consideration is not everywhere recognized. * * $ * $ There appears to be no good reason for excluding statutes of limitation, or remedial statutes, from the general rule, that retroactive or retrospective legislation is not favored, in the absence of any words expressing a contrary intention .... It is reasonable to conclude that the failure to express an intention to make a statute retroactive evidences a lack of such intention.... It is not to be presumed that the legislature intends to work an injustice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 34 Va. App. 36 - Michael Brian Shaffer v. Commonwealth of Virginia