Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 S.C. 172 - Moates v. Bobb

Moates v. Bobb’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Transportation Insurance v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund (2010), Hedgepath v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (2001)

38 state decisions

200199620002010decided

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 Burnett v. New York Central Railroad · Doe v. Clark · Vines v. Self Memorial Hospital · McKinney v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · Gadsden v. Southern Railroad

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

  1. “Statutes of limitations are not simply technicalities. On the contrary, they have long been respected as fundamental to a well-ordered judicial system. Statutes of limitations embody important public policy considerations in that they stimulate activity, punish negligence, and promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs. One purpose of a statute of limitations is to relieve the courts of the burden of trying stale claims when a plaintiff has slept on his rights. Another purpose of a statute of limitations is to protect potential defendants from protracted fear of litigation.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A review of the record in this case shows [plaintiffs’ lawyer] did not even begin settlement negotiations, let alone finalize them. Although the letters from [defendant’s insurer] to [plaintiffs’ lawyer] refer to the goal of “settlement” of the case, the clear purpose of the letters was to ask [plaintiffs’ lawyer] to forward essential medical information ... so the parties could “get moving toward the settlement” of the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An inducement for delay may consist of either an express representation that the claim will be settled without litigation or other conduct that suggests a lawsuit is not necessary.”
    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.