Fager v. Hundt’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bend (2009), Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Inc. (1999)
4 federal appellate · 28 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 Guy v. SCHULDT · Montgomery v. Crum · DeRose v. Carswell · 107 Wash. 2d 72 - Tyson v. Tyson · Petersen v. Bruen
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concealed from the plaintiff material facts thereby pre venting the plaintiff from discovering a potential cause of action.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Discovery” of a cause of action by a child’s parent, even absent actual cognition or memory by the child, shall be imputed to the child and shall conclusively constitute the accrual of an action within the meaning of the disability statute, Ind.Code § 34-1-2-5, thus allowing the minor two years after reaching majority within which to commence suit. However, this general rule must be subject to an exception when, as in the present case, the plaintiffs claim asserts childhood injury from the intentional felonious act of a parent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Indiana law provides that a plaintiff must file a claim of negligence against a municipal defendant within 180 days after the defendant commits negligence. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, and the Lyonses claim two of those exceptions in this case. To decide whether the Lyonses filed their claim within the required period of time, first, you must decide whether, and if so when, the defendants committed the act of negligence. Next, you must decide when a reasonable person would have discovered the act of negligence. If you decide that the Lyonses knew or in the exercise of ordinary diligence should have known of the negligence prior to July 15, 2009, you must decide in favor of the defendants. But if not, the Lyonses filed this lawsuit within the required time period. Or, if the Lyonses prove by the greater weight of the evidence that (1) the defendants actively concealed an important fact with the intent to mislead or hinder the Lyonses from obtaining information about the negligence, and (2) the Lyons-es filed this lawsuit within a reasonable time period after they discovered, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the negligence, then they filed this lawsuit within the required time period. But if the defendants prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the Lyonses did not file their lawsuit within the required time period, you must decide in favor of the defendants. 3”
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.