Beatty v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2020
14 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 United Brick & Tile Company v. Roy · Swafford v. Schoeb · Bowling v. Blackwell Zinc Company
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is settled law that when a statutory bar of limitation is properly invoked, the burden devolves upon the party seeking to avoid its effect to show the facts or acts which operate to either arrest, suspend, toll or waive the limitation period. United Brick & Tile Co. v. Roy, Okl., 356 P.2d 107 ; Swafford v. Schoeb Ranch Mills, Okl., 359 P.2d 584 ; Bowling v, Blackwell Zinc Co., Okl., 347 P.2d 1022 . * * ⅜»”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“and unless a claimant brings himself within an express exception contained in the enactment, or shows acts which operate to toll or arrest the statutory bar, the provisions of the statute are mandatory....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The plain terms of the enactment involved herein cast upon the claimant the duty of diligence in prosecuting his claim to a final determination. While it is a condition. Its bar is positive, and untrue that it is equally within the power of the respondent to move for an early disposition, he is under no legal duty to act, and is not expected to do more than meet his opponent step by step. Nor is the respondent required to show prejudice as a pre-requisite to obtaining a dismissal. The statute does not impose such less claimant brings himself within an express exception contained in the enactment, or shows acts which operate to toll or arrest the statutory bar, the provisions of the statute are mandatory, and the State Industrial Court is without authority to excuse the delay.””
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.