Wright v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Cronin v. Howe (1995), Ripley v. Tolbert (1996)
10 federal appellate · 45 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 Klein v. Catalano · Clark v. Newsome · Browning v. Maytag Corp. · Smith v. Cobb County-Kennestone Hospital Authority · 183 Ga. App. 666 - Adams v. Gluckman
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statute of limitations normally governs the time within which legal proceedings must be commenced after the cause of action accrues. A statute of repose, however, limits the time within which an action may be brought and is not related to the accrual of any cause of action. The injury need not have occurred, much less have been discovered.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A statute of repose stands as an unyielding barrier to a plaintiffs right of action ... [which] destroys the previously existing rights so that, on the expiration of the statutory period, the cause of action no longer exists.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“As used in this article, the term "action for medical malpractice" means any claim for damages resulting from the death of or injury to any person arising out of: (1) Health, medical, dental, or surgical service, diagnosis, prescription, treatment, or care rendered by a person authorized by law to perform such service or by any person acting under the supervision and control of the lawfully authorized person; or (2) Care or service rendered by any public or private hospital, nursing home, clinic, hospital authority, facility, or institution, or by any officer, agent, or employee thereof acting within the scope of his employment. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71 states, in pertinent part: (a)Except as otherwise provided in this article, an action for medical malpractice shall be brought within two years after the date on which an injury or death arising from a negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Code section, in no event may an action for medical malpractice be brought more than five years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred. (c) Subsection (a) of this Code section is intended to create a two-year statute of limitations. Subsection (b) of this Code section is intended to create a five-year statute of. ultimate repose and abrogation.”
3 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.