Leyen v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “The legislative intent as above found is reasonable wherein a four year period is set up, for actions contemplated by the Act, during which time the person who suffered personal injury would not be barred from recovery before the injuries occurred. And, the contractors, architects, engineers, etc., who might be subject to suit for damages due to personal injuries received, under situations contemplated by the Act, would not be subjected to suits so remote in time as to be speculative and uncertain, but would only be subject to suits for such injuries which occur within four (U) years after substantial completion of the improvement. 461 S.W.2d at 45 . (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Agus v. Future Chattanooga Development Corporation

2. “-X- * * -X- -X- -X- There is no indication the Legislature intended to extend the time for bringing suit for personal injuries to four (4) years from date of injury in the situations covered by the statute. * * * * * * We conclude the legislative intent was that when a person suffered personal injury, as result of situations covered by the Act, within four (4) years after substantial completion of the improvement, that person could bring suit for damages thus sustained within one (1) year after the date of injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 352 F. Supp. 288 - City of Kingsport v. SCM Corporation