King v. Kitchen Magic, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Diamond v. Davis (1996), Riddell v. Riddell Washington Corp. (1989)
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 15 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 Holmberg v. Armbrecht · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · Gardner v. Panama Railroad · Russell v. Todd · Russell v. Todd
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellees may not prevent this defense [of fraud] from being asserted simply by delaying the initiation of an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding until after the statute of limitations has run on the Kings’ legal cause of action. The Kings’ suit, like the one filed by the plaintiff in Hill v. Hawes, supra, in effect seeks a declaratory ruling that they have a complete defense to enforcement of the deed of trust. The Kings, therefore, are not precluded by the statute of limitations from maintaining the equitable portion of their suit [seeking to nullify the purported lien].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The statute of limitations does not bar the relief sought in this case. Under the usury statute recovery of usurious payments is limited to one year. Under the general statute of limitations actions not otherwise limited must be brought within three years. However, no statute puts any limitations on the claim of usury used as a defense in a suit based on the usurious obligation. A usurer cannot by delaying suit on a note acquire the right to collect the usurious payments forfeited by the statute. In substance, this suit may be regarded as one for a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs intestate had a complete defense to her obligation on the note. A declaration that there is a complete defense to the note is not barred by the statute.” [Footnotes omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the time the right to maintain the action accrues,”
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.