Owen v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 79 Ill. 2d 295 - Anderson v. Wagner (1979), Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Baker (1999)
65 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 Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen · Wichelman v. Messner · Carter v. Hartenstein · Williams v. Edmondson
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Any statute of limitations will eventually operate to bar a remedy and the time within which a claim should be asserted is a matter of public policy, the determination of which lies almost exclusively in the legislative domain, and the decision of the General Assembly in that regard will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of palpable error in the exercise of the legislative judgment.’ (Owen v. Wilson (1976), 260 Ark. 21, 24-25 , 537 S.W.2d 543, 545 .)” ( 79 Ill. 2d 295, 311 .)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Statutes of limitation find their justification in necessity and convenience rather than in logic. They represent expedients, rather than principles. They are practical and pragmatic devices to spare the courts from litigation of stale claims, and the citizen from being put to his defense after memories have faded, witnesses have died or disappeared, and evidence has been lost. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 349 . They are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the avoidable and unavoidable delay. They have come into the law not through the judicial process but through legislation. They represent a public policy about the privilege to litigate. Their shelter has never been regarded as what now is called a `fundamental' right or what used to be called a `natural' right of the individual. He may, of course, have the protection of the policy while it exists, but the history of pleas of limitation shows them to be good only by legislative grace and to be subject to a relatively large degree of legislative control." p. 314.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We are in no position to say that the legislative determination that two years . is such an unreasonable short period of time for those situated like appellants to discover and assert their cause of action, absent fraudulent concealment to deprive them of due process of law or to deprive them of any remedy.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.