Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.3d 1380 · 1994
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 182 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 602 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Podobnik v. United States Postal Service (2005), Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections (1998)
77 federal appellate · 182 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Delaware State College v. Ricks · Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans · Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal · Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
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 602 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) where the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the plaintiff's cause of action; (2) where the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his or her rights; or (3) where the plaintiff has timely asserted his or her rights mistakenly in the wrong forum.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Underlying this difference between the discovery rule and equitable tolling is the more fundamental difference in purpose between the two rules. The purpose of the discovery rule is to determine the accrual date of a claim, for ultimate purposes of determining, as a legal matter, when the statute of limitations begins to run. Equitable tolling ... presumes claim accrual. Equitable tolling steps in to toll, or stop, the running of the statute of limitations in light of established equitable considerations.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the face of the complaint affirmatively indicates that the time limit for bringing the claim has passed, that plaintiff may [not] escape the statute by saying nothing.' " (quoting Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., 958 F.2d 742 , 745 (6th Cir.1992)); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 , 1384 n. 1 (3d Cir.1994) ("While the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) indicates that a statute of limitations defense cannot be used in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, an exception is made where the complaint facially shows noncompliance with the limitations period and the affirmative defense clearly appears on the face of the pleading.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.