Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 P.3d 769 - Cornett v. Carr

Cornett v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 46 U.S.C. § 30908 (Suits in Admiralty Act) ·

Relies on Henderson v. United States · Baker v. Internal Revenue Service · Fanning v. Brown · Gay v. Akin · Depuy v. Hoeme

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

  1. “'Where an action is not diligently prosecuted, the court may require the plaintiff to show why the action should not be dismissed. If the plaintiff does not show good cause why the action should not be dismissed, the court shall dismiss the action without prejudice. A court shall dismiss actions in which no action has been taken for a year as provided in 12 O.S. 1981 § 1083.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “prospec tively-eontrolling only those cases currently pending or filed after the issuance of this opinion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “SUMMONS: TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE. If service of process is not made upon a defendant within one hundred eighty (180) days after the filing of the petition and the plaintiff has not shown good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be deemed dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice. The action shall not be dismissed if a summons was served on the defendant within one hundred eighty (180) days after the filing of the petition and a court later holds that the summons or its service was invalid. After a court quashes a summons or its service, a new summons may be served on the defendant within a time specified by the judge. If the new summons is not served within the specified time, the action shall be deemed to have been dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant. This subsection shall not apply with respect to a defendant who has been outside of this state for one hundred eighty (180) days following the filing of the petition.”
    1 later decision 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.