Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Va. 202 - Starnes v. Cayouette

Starnes v. Cayouette’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
4
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City (1993), Nunnally v. Artis (1997)

1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

480199220002010decided

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 Campbell v. Holt · Adams v. United States · Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority v. Laburnum Construction Corp. · Shiflet v. Eller

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

  1. “... when a tort causes a contemporaneous personal injury the fact that the victim suffered greater physical or mental hurt from that tort at a later date does not defer the date of accrual of the cause of action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In actions for injury to the person, whatever the theory of recovery, resulting from sexual abuse occurring during the infancy or incompetency of the person, [the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue] when the fact of the injury and its causal connection to the sexual abuse is first communicated to the person by a licensed physician, psychologist, or clinical psychologist. However, no such action may be brought more than ten years after the later of (i) the last act by the same perpetrator which was part of a common scheme or plan of abuse or (ii) removal of the disability of infancy or incompetency. As used in this subdivision, ‘sexual abuse’ means sexual abuse as defined in subdivision 6 of § 18.2-67.10 and acts constituting rape, sodomy, inanimate object sexual penetration or sexual battery as defined in Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2. [T]he provisions of subdivision 6 of § 8.01-249 shall apply to all actions filed on or after July 1, 1991, without regard to when the act upon which the claim is based occurred provided that no such claim which accrued prior to July 1, 1991, shall be barred by application of those provisions if it is filed within one year of the effective date of this act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The immunity from suit which arises by operation of the statute of limitations is as valuable a right as the right to bring the suit itself... . Statutes of limitation are not only calculated for the repose and peace of society, but to provide against the evils that arise from loss of evidence and the failing memory of witnesses... . Remedies are the life of rights, and are equally protected by the Constitution. Deprivation of a remedy is equivalent to a deprivation of the right which it is intended to vindicate, unless another remedy exists or is substituted for that which is taken away.”
    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.