Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 U.S. 55 - Jeannie Wilson v. Adam Iseminger H

Jeannie Wilson v. Adam Iseminger H’s Empirical Analysis

185 U.S. 55 · 1902

Citation profile

248
cited by 248 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 21 district · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 248 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

79 federal appellate · 21 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 27 states

8101902191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Terry v. Anderson · Montgomery Bell v. James Morrison Anthony Butler and Jonathan Taylor · Sohn v. Waterson · Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas

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

  1. “It may be properly conceded that all statutes of limitation must proceed on the idea that the party has full opportunity afforded him to try his right in the courts. A statute could not bar the existing rights of claimants without affording this opportunity; if it should attempt to do so, it would not be a statute of limitations, but an unlawful attempt to extinguish rights arbitrarily, whatever might be the purport of its provisions.”
    38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Notwithstanding the protection which the law gives to vested rights, it is possible for a party to debar himself of the right to assert the same in the courts for his own negligence or laches. If one who is dispossessed be negligent for a long and unreasonable time, the law refuses afterwards to lend him any assistance to recover the possession merely, both to punish his neglect, * * * and also because it is presumed that the supposed wrongdoer has in such a length of time procured a legal title, otherwise he would sooner have been sued. Statutes of limitation are passed which fix upon a reasonable time within which a party is permitted to bring suit for the recovery of his rights, and which, on failure to do so, establish a legal presumption against him that he has no rights in the premises. Such a statute is a statute of repose. Every government is under obligation to its citizens to afford them all needful legal remedies; but it is not bound to keep its courts open indefinitely for one who neglects or refuses to apply for redress until it may fairly be presumed that the means by which the other party might disprove his claim are lost in the lapse of time.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The theory of this remedial act is that upon which all statutes of limitation are based,—a presumption that, after a long lapse of time, without assertion, a claim, either for money or for an interest in land, is presumed to have been paid or released. This is a rule of convenience and policy, the result of a necessary regard to the peace and security of society. “Bonds, even when secured by mortgages upon land, mortgages themselves, merchant’s accounts, legacies, judgments, promissory notes, and all evidences of debt, have universally been treated as law fully within the reach of legislative power exercised by the passage of statutes of limitation. Such statutes, like those forbidding perpetuities and the statute of frauds, do not in one sense, destroy the obligation of contracts as between the parties thereto, but they remove the remedies which otherwise would be furnished by the courts.””
    2 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.