Whitehurst v. Duffy’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp. (1972), 856 F. Supp. 1076 - WAMCO, III, Ltd. v. First Piedmont Mortgage Corp. (1994)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 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 Campbell v. Whoriskey · Palmer v. Palmer · Thompson v. Whitaker Iron Co. · Kraft v. Thomas · Shaw v. Silloway
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[If] the only act necessary to perfect the plaintiff’s cause of action is one to be performed by the plaintiff, and he is under no restraint or disability in the performance of such act, he cannot indefinitely suspend the statute of limitations by delaying performance of that act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f the obligation to pay a debt is contingent on . . . the lapse of a specified period of time . . . the statute [of limitations] cannot begin to run until that time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are of opinion that the true principle is that the time when the demand must be made depends upon the construction to be put upon the contract in each case. If the contract requires a demand without language referring to the time when the demand is to be made, it is as if the words ‘within a reasonable time’ were found in it. What is a reasonable time is a question of law, to be determined with reference to the nature of the contract and the probable intention of the parties- as indicated by it. Where there is nothing to indicate an expectation that a demand is to be made quickly, or that there is to be delay in making it, we are of opinion that the time limited for bringing such an action after the cause of action accrues should ordinarily be treated as the time within which a demand must be made. See Jameson v. Jameson, 72 Mo. 640 , and cases above cited. Such a rule seems fairly to apply the principles and analogies of the statute of limitations to the contract of the parties, and it is in accordance with the weight of authority in this commonwealth and elsewhere.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Southward v. Foy
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.