Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 SO2D 496 - Wilson v. Wilson

Wilson v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably 588 So. 2d 428 - Varner v. Varner (1991), Premeaux v. Smith (1990)

29 state decisions

1001985199020002010decided

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 Rubisoff v. Rubisoff · 431 So. 2d 1115 - Trunzler v. Trunzler · Hailey v. Holden · 258 So. 2d 233 - Simpson v. Rast · Donahoe v. TATUM, DBA PERSONNEL SERV.

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

  1. “§ 15-1-59. Saving in favor of persons under disabilities. If any person entitled to bring any of the personal actions mentioned shall, at the time at which the cause of action accrued, be under the disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind, he may bring the actions within the times in this chapter respectively limited, after his disability shall be removed as provided by law. However, the saving in favor of persons under disability of unsoundness of mind shall never extend longer than twenty-one years.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]o allow the statute of limitations to run during the disability of the minor, the very period through which the minor needs and is entitled to the support of his parents, would defy reason.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The custodial parent has a duty to care for the children so far as that parent is able to do so, but where court ordered support is involved from the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent is not a real party in interest sufficient to bar the child’s recovery of past-due support payments. The custodial parent is merely the conduit through which the support money passes for the benefit of the children.”
    3 later decisions 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.