Zelson v. Thomforde’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.2d 1360 · 1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lemke v. Bailey · Mabel Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison · 28 N.J. Super. 543 - Whalen v. Young · Lemke v. Bailey · Shapiro v. Friedman
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If any person against whom there is any of the causes of action specified in sections SA:14~jl to %A:14~5 and 2A:14~8, or if any surety against whom there is a cause of action specified in any of the sections of article 2 of this chapter, is not a residlent of this state when such cause of action accrues, or removes from this state after the accrual thereof and before the expiration of the times limited in said sections, or if any corporation or corporate surety not organized under the laws of this state, against whom there is such a cause of action, is not represented in this state by any person or officer upon whom summons or other original process may be served, when such cause of action accrues or at any time before the expiration of the times so limited, the time or times during which such person or surety is not residing within this state or such corporation or corporate surety is not so represented within this state shall not he computed as part of the periods of time within which such an action is required to he commenced hy the section. The person entitled to any such action may commence the same after the accrual of the cause therefor, within the period of time limited therefor by said section, exclusive of such time or times of nonresidence or nonrepresentation. [Emphasis supplied]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think, as did the Court of Errors and Appeals [in Shapiro v. Friedman, 132 N. J. L. 456 (E. & A. 1945)], that it is fair to assume that in enacting the tolling statute the Legislature was intent on protecting New Jersey residents who had New Jersey claims against nonresident debtors from having to go to foreign jurisdictions to enforce their claims, [at 1362]”
1 later decision 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.