Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 U.S. 309 - Wetzell v. Bussard

Wetzell v. Bussard’s Empirical Analysis

24 U.S. 309 · 1826

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably Sun Oil Company v. Wortman (1988), Montgomery Bell v. James Morrison Anthony Butler and Jonathan Taylor (1828)

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 12 states

9018261830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Clementson v. Williams

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

  1. “The statute of. limitations is entitled to the same respect with other statutes, and ought not to be explained away. In this case there, is no promise, conditional or unconditional; but a simple acknowledgment. . This acknowledgment goes to the original justice of the account; but this is.not enough. The-statute of limitations was not exacted to protect persons from claims fictitious in their origin, but from ancient claims, whether well or ill founded, which may have been discharged, but the evidence of discharge may be lost". It is not then sufficient to take the case out of the act, that the claim should be proved or be acknowledged to have been originally just; the acknowledgment must go to the fact that it is still due.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an acknowledgment which will revive the original cause of action must be unqualified and unconditional. It must show positively that the debt is due in whole or in part. If it be connected with circumstances which in any manner affect the claim, or if it be conditional, it may amount to a new assumpsit for which the old debt is a sufficient consideration; or if it be construed to revive the original debt, that revival is conditional, and the performance of the condition, or a readiness to perform it, must be shown.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““An unqualified admission that the debt is dne at the time has always been held to remove the bar created by the statute.””
    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.