Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 So. 2d 532 - Bustamento v. Tucker

607 So. 2d 532 - Bustamento v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
6
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 101 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Wimberly v. Gatch (1994), Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2000)

4 federal appellate · 101 state decisions

5301992200020102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Liegl v. Webb · Andrews v. City of Philadelphia · Dennis v. United States · Waltman v. International Paper Co.

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

  1. “when the acts or conduct are continuous on an almost daily basis, by the same actor, of the same nature, and the conduct becomes tortious and actionable because of its continuous, cumulative, synergistic nature, then prescription does not commence until the last act occurs or the conduct is abated.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Interruption of prescription against joint tortfeasor A occurs by a timely lawsuit against joint tortfeasor B only as to conduct for which tortfeasors A and B are responsible, and only if the cause of action against tortfeasor A was not prescribed when the suit against tortfeasor B was filed.... Once prescription occurs it cannot be interrupted. Timely suit against one solidary obligor does not interrupt prescription that has run against another solidary obligor. [Emphasis added.]”
    2 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.