Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 487 N.W.2d 21 - Conway v. Conway

Conway v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

2 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank (1998), Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls (2008)

2 district · 32 state decisions

1401992200020102020decided

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 Shapiro v. Thompson · Jehovah's Witnesses in State of Wash. v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 · Golden v. Oahe Enterprises, Inc. · Hinkle v. Hargens · Conard v. Waugh

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

  1. “and presumptively establishes the defense by showing the case was instituted beyond the statutory period, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish the existence of material facts in avoidance of the statute . . . [.]”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) she had full knowledge of the facts upon which the action is based, (2) regardless of this knowledge, she engaged in an unreasonable delay before commencing the suit, and (3) that allowing her to maintain the action would prejudice other parties.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In the absence of some trust or confidential relationship between the parties there must be some affirmative act or conduct on the part of the defendant designed to prevent, and which does prevent, the discovery of the cause of action. Mere silence, in the absence of a duty to speak, is not ordinarily sufficient. Where, however, a trust or other confidential relationship does exist between the parties, silence on the part of one having the duty to disclose, constitutes fraudulent concealment in the absence of any affirmative act.”
    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.