Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 N.E.2d 91 - Basinger v. Sullivan

Basinger v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
5
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2012

15 state decisions

1301989199020002010decided

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 Shideler v. Dwyer · Guy v. SCHULDT · French v. Hickman Moving & Storage · Spoljaric v. Pangan · Bailey v. Martz

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

  1. “Where legal malpractice is claimed for an attorney's failure to commence an action within the period of limitations it is generally held that one of the necessary ultimate proofs for a recovery of damages is that a recovery would have been had if the suit had been properly brought. Can it then be contended that the limitation period does not commence to run on the attorney's negligence until plaintiff's right to recovery on the original claim has been judicially established? Clearly, the answer is no. To permit such reasoning would for all practical purposes preclude the statute from ever commencing to run.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If any person liable to an action shall conceal the fact from the knowledge of the person entitled thereto, the action may be commenced at any time within the period of limitation after the discovery of the cause of action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'It must appear that some trick or artifice has been employed to prevent inquiry or elude investigation, or calculated to mislead and hinder the party entitled from obtaining information, by the use of ordinary diligence, that a right of action exists; or it must appear that the facts were misrepresented to or concealed from the party, by some positive acts or declarations, when inquiry was being made or information sought....' [Citation omitted].”
    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.