Goodwin v. Townsend’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.2d 970 · 1952
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2004 · most notably Combs II Cta II v. International Insurance Company (2004), Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co. (1955)
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Davis v. Mills · Matheny v. Porter · Colonial Trust Co. v. Elmer C. Breuer, Inc.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Compliance with 45 U.S.C. § 56 is a condition precedent to an injured employee’s recovery in a FELA action. . . . Failure to timely bring suit not only bars the claimant’s remedy, but it also destroys the employer’s liability. . . . “For if a statute of limitations is thus made a limitation upon the continued existence of the right, rather than a mere bar to suit upon it, it goes to the substance of the plaintiff’s claim so that he must show himself to be within the statute in order to recover . . . .” The burden is therefore on the claimant to allege and to prove that his cause of action was commenced within the three-year period.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““for it is perfectly clear that the Ontario statute in question has no substantive effect but merely operated to bar suits in the courts of that province. This appears from the face of the statute itself which is framed in procedural language — ‘no action shall be brought’ — rather than in language limiting the right. Moreover the statute did not create the plaintiff’s right, a factor which has frequently been regarded as decisive of the question. 9 And finally, and most decisive of all, the statute has been specifically construed by the Court of Appeal of Ontario to operate merely to bar the remedy and not to extinguish the right. 10”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““147-(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection 2 and 3 no action shall be brought against a person for the recovery of damages occasioned by a motor vehicle after the expiration of twelve months from the time when the damages were sustained.””
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.