Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 KAN 311 - Bowman v. Cockrill

Bowman v. Cockrill’s Empirical Analysis

1870

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
12
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Harding v. K.C. Wall Products, Inc. (1992), Ripley v. Tolbert (1996)

1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions — followed in 12 states

901870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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. ““[Statutes of limitations] can never operate where no cause of action exists; and can never operate except when rights have already been disturbed. The effect of the operation of the statute of limitations is not to create a cause of action; its effect is to take away a cause of action already created by acts of one or both of the parties. The effect is not to disturb rights, nor to transfer property; but to leave rights and property just where the parties themselves have voluntarily chosen to leave them during the running of the statute. The statutes of limitations simply say this to the party injured: ‘You have voluntarily allowed your property (real or personal as the case may be,) or the money you claim as compensation for some injury done to you, (on either contract or tort,) to remain in the possession of your adversary during a certain period without any effort to recover it, and now we will allow it to remain in the same place and in the same condition forever.’ “. . . After a cause of action is once barred by a statute of limitations it is not in the power of the legislature to revive it by subsequent legislation.” 6 Kan. at 338-40 .”
    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.