Lancaster v. Springer’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 1982 · most notably 78 Ill. 2d 555 - Chicago Park District v. Kenroy, Inc. (1980), 108 Ill. App. 3d 137 - Bates v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1982)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 Fortune v. English · Albretch v. Wolf · Conner v. Goodman · Monson v. Hutchin · Mayfield v. Forsyth
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The concealment of a cause of action which will prevent the operation of the Statute of Limitations must be something of an affirmative character, designed to prevent, and which does prevent, the discovery of the cause of action. Mere silence by the person liable is not concealment of a cause of action. Such concealment must consist of affirmative acts or representations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The failure of the complainants to learn of the existence of their cause of action does not prevent the operation of the Statute of Limitations.”
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.