Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 F.2d 198 - Moore v. Dunham

Moore v. Dunham’s Empirical Analysis

240 F.2d 198 · 1956

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
7
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2009

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

70195619601970198019902000decided

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 295 Ill. App. 504 - Nelson v. Richardson · Bode v. Flynn · Kokenge v. Holthaus · Cowley-Lanter Lbr. Co. v. Dow

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

  1. ““Oklahoma courts have not construed Section 98 in connection with the provisions for service of process under the Nonresident Motorist Act. But the majority, and we think the better reasoned view, holds that provisions for substituted service of process upon a state official arising out of motor accidents within the state has the effect of nullifying any statute suspending the period of limitations. See Annotations 17 A.L.R.2d 516 ; 119 A.L.R. 859 ; 94 A.L.R. 485 ; Kokenge v. Holthaus, [243] Iowa [571], 52 N.W.2d 711 ; Nelson v. Richardson, 295 Ill.App. 504 , 15 N.E.2d 17 . Such view is said to be consistent with the purpose of substituted service, i. e. expeditious adjudication of the rights of the parties; that by creating substituted service, the legislature obviously intended to provide an exception to the suspension provision; and that a contrary conclusion would permit a plaintiff to defer the institution of his action indefinitely to the prejudice of the defendant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning of this article, as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him, or on a codefendant, who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him. Where service by publication is proper, the action shall be deemed commenced at the date of the first publication. An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, within the meaning of this article, when the party faithfully, properly and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed by the first publication or service of the summons within sixty days.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Oklahoma’s Nonresident Motorist Act provides for the service of summons on a nonresident motorist defendant by serving a copy of the original summons or notice of suit with the Secretary of State, 47 O.S.A. § 394(a), and by mailing notification of suit to the defendant by restricted registered mail at his last known residence or place of abode, within ten days after serving notice on the Secretary of State. 47 O.S.A. § 394(b). A return receipt is required, 47 O.S.A. § 396, (Since repealed) which shall be filed with the Clerk of the district court in which the action is brought. 47 O.S.A. § 398.””
    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.