DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (1990), O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983)
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 23 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 Urie v. Thompson · Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. · Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. · Fussner v. Andert · Hauser v. Mealey
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not in the public interest, absent a showing of fraudulent concealment, to encourage, literally, the unearthing of wrongful death causes of action long after the death has occurred because there is some suspicion that death was caused by a wrongful act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The current version [of Minn.Stat. § 573.02] ... presents the possibility that a wrongful death action could expire before death by limiting the bringing of actions to six years after the act or omission. Time-barring a wrongful death action before death triggers accrual of the right to bring the action has been criticized as illogical and unjust. Despite any injustice or illogie to such an approach, the plain meaning of the statute seems to be clear.... [T]he legislature is expressing its intention to bar actions for some deaths caused by wrongful acts or omissions even if they are brought on the day of death.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rights under the death statute, on the contrary, arise only by reason of death itself and not until then. It, perforce, cannot be an action which survives death, since death itself creates it. These two statutes, therefore, deal with different classes of actions and are not in pari materia. The rule of in pari materia can be invoked only when the two statutes under consideration relate to the same subject matter and the same class of actions. Such is not the situation in the case at bar. We reluctantly reach the conclusion that plaintiff is barred by § 573.02, supra, because his action was not commenced within the two-year limitation period. While doubtful of the wisdom and fairness of the present status of the law in this respect, it is not for us to encroach upon the legislative function by a construction of a statute which does violence to the plain intention of the lawmaking body. We are of the opinion that justice will be better served if a saving clause is added to the death statute so as to make applicable thereto the tolling pro visions of the statute of limitations. We commend this change to the careful consideration of the legislature.”
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.