Roe v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “available state law is clearly insufficient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Passaro v. Virginia · Stoneledge At Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

2. “[I]n civil suits for damages based on childhood sexual abuse where the plaintiff had, for a time, allegedly suppressed all memory of the supposed abuse, courts should not allow the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations absent corroborative evidence of both the abuse and the repression of memory of the abuse.... Corroboration of the act itself could be obtained anecdotally from siblings or other household members, from a documented medical history of childhood sexual abuse, or by the defendant's admission, perhaps via a letter or diary. Evidence of a prior criminal conviction for the abuse at issue could suffice to corroborate, as could evidence that the defendant had sexually abused others—subject, of course, to the rules regarding proof of "other bad acts." Evidence that the plaintiff had actually repressed the memory of the abuse should be provided only by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and then only after a thorough clinical evaluation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God

3. “The Court is prepared to take as true, for purposes of this case, that repressed victims generally and plaintiff in particular can form an impression and conviction of having been abused by another individual as a child, well before they perceive their images as memories. We are required to assume, within reason, that the facts are as plaintiff and her experts allege them to be. What we decline to do is to make the leap urged by plaintiff; that is, to determine that the South Carolina Supreme Court would make an exception to the statute of limitations, or apply it differently, in personal injury cases brought by plaintiffs alleging repressed recollection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God