Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 319 A.2d 44 - Leavy v. Saunders

Leavy v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
4
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2001

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

1301974198019902000decided

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 Gaines v. . City of New York · Momand v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. · 408 & 410 King Street v. Wilmington Housing Authority · Turner v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad · 142 F. Supp. 354 - Sorensen v. the Overland Corporation

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

  1. “The express language of the amendment to § 8-634, enacted March 7, 1904, excludes from the one year limitation the time that the first action was pending if that action "for any cause abates or is dismissed without determining the merits of said action." The amendment does not use the word "non-suit." Yet its dominant purpose is clearly disclosed by the language "without determining the merits of said action." Given the liberal construction to which it is entitled, that phrase evinces an intent to save to the plaintiff the time the first action was pending so as to afford him opportunity to obtain a trial upon the merits. A statute extending the time for the institution of a new action on failure of the original action for reasons other than on the merits is highly remedial, and should be liberally construed in furtherance of its purpose, to afford litigants a hearing on the merits, and is not to be frittered away by any narrow construction; ... 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 287 (b), p. 347. Quite often there is difference in the office or meaning of the words "abate," "dismiss," or "nonsuit," depending upon how and where used, or upon the overall context of the language employed, the purpose sought to be accomplished or like considerations. 17 Am.Jur., Dismissal, Discontinuance and Nonsuit, § 21, p. 57; 27 C.J.S., Dismissal and Nonsuit, §§ 1, 2, and 3, pp. 155, 156; 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 1, p. 27. However, as the words "abates" and "dismissed" are used in”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If in any action duly commenced within the time limited therefor in this chapter, the writ fails of a sufficient service or return by any unavoidable accident, or by any default or neglect of the officer to whom it is committed; or if the writ is abated, or the action otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of any party thereto, or for any matter of form ... a new action may be commenced, for the same cause of action, at any time within 1 year after the abatement or other determination of the original action . . . ”.”
    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.