Branch v. Branch’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2008 · most notably Barksdale v. H.O. Engen, Inc. (1977), 125 W. Va. 619 - McKinley v. Queen (1943)
8 federal appellate · 14 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 Ferguson v. Ferguson · American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Hamilton · Dowell v. Cox · Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank · Commonwealth v. Deford 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Textbook writers and other authorities are generally agreed that there is a distinction between a pure statute of limitations, which must be specifically pleaded, and a special limitation prescribed by a statute creating a new right; for example, the limitation of one year for instituting an action for wrongful death and the limitation of six months within which a suit may be brought to enforce a mechanic’s lien. In the given instances, the right to bring the suit and the jurisdiction of the court is dependent upon the suit being brought within the period of limitation. Savings Bank of Richmond v. Powhatan Clay Mfg. Co., [ 102 Va. 274 , 46 S.E. 294 (1904)]; Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 460 , 62 S.E. 272 ; Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat’l Bank, 141 Va. 244 , 126 S.E. 196 ; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391 , 135 S.E. 21 . The declaration or the bill in such cases is demurrable not only where it shows on its face that the prescribed period has elapsed; but also unless it affirmatively shows that such period has not expired. The statute relates to the very right of the action as well as the remedy. This rule is consonant with reason, and obtains in Virginia and most of the States. Burks’ Pleading and Practice (3d Ed.), pages 213, 214. In Barton’s Chancery Practice (3d Ed.), Volume I, at page 26, it is said: ‘In Virginia it is now settled that the statute of limitations cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer except where a statute creates a right which did not exis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Chen“If a statute confers a right for the first time (i.e., a right that did not exist at common law) and at the same time fixes the period within which the right may be enforced, then the limitation is of the right, and not merely of the remedy. Here time is of the essence of the right and a condition of its existence and duration (and not a mere limitation of the remedy) and it should be alleged and proved that the action is brought within the period of existence of the right. The right is lost if not asserted within the statutory period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Chen“the judgment or order shall be forever binding”
1 later decision 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.