Interdonato v. Interdonato’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Diamond v. Davis (1996), Duggan v. Keto (1989)
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 21 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 Baker v. Carr · Allen v. McCurry · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · Holmberg v. Armbrecht
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] defendant is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense if that defendant has `done anything that would tend to lull the plaintiff into inaction and thereby permit the statutory limitation to run against him.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f ample time to file suit within the statutory period exists after the circumstances inducing delay have ceased, there is no estoppel against pleading the bar of the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“On April 19, 1953, Guy Interdonato died unexpectedly. He was survived by his widow, Antonia, the plaintiff in this case, and by his son, Andrew, who is no longer a party to this action. Guy’s brother, Paul Interdonato, the defendant in this case, allegedly agreed to take care of Antonia, who was 21 years old and spoke no English. Between 1953 and 1963, Paul administered Guy’s estate and managed the business ventures in which these brothers had been engaged. Antonia, however, was not satisfied with Paul’s actions on her behalf. In April, 1963, Antonia sued Paul in the District of Columbia for damages alleging fraudulent conduct and his breach of fiduciary duty as her attorney, as the executor of the estate and as a trustee of the testamentary trust created by Guy’s will. The 1963 suit was settled and dismissed in 1966 when Paul allegedly made an oral promise to pay Antonia’s legal expenses and to either transfer property at 527, 529 ... Eighth Street, Southeast, to Antonia or bequeath it to Andrew. During the next decade, the property was neither transferred to Antonia nor bequeathed to Andrew. In March, 1972, Andrew sued Paul in Prince George’s County seeking an accounting of the trust funds, an appraisal of the property and other relief. The 1972 suit was terminated without trial. Paul paid $64,000 to Antonia and Andrew in exchange for a release of any and all claims with respect to the administration of the trust under Guy’s will. Thereafter, November, 1982, Antonia and And”
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.