638 So. 2d 1252 - Smith v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 735 So. 2d 161 - Donald v. Amoco Production Co. (1999), 857 So. 2d 748 - ROYER HOMES OF MS., INC. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc. (2003)
4 federal appellate · 33 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 Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · Willis v. Maverick · Robinson v. Weaver
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although under certain circumstances a defendant's actions may be such that estop that defendant from claiming the protection of a statute of limitations, we do not agree that equitable estoppel should be applied so liberally as to allow a plaintiff to assert estoppel where no inequitable behavior is present. Statutes of limitations are well established in our judicial system. We have stated their purpose before as follows: The primary purpose of statutory time limitations is to compel the exercise of a right of action within a reasonable time. These statutes are founded upon the general experience of society that valid claims will be promptly pursued and not allowed to remain neglected. They are designed to suppress assertion of false and stale claims, when evidence has been lost, memories have faded, witnesses are unavailable, or facts are incapable of production because of the lapse of time. Accordingly, the fact that a barred claim is a just one or has the sanction of a moral obligation does not exempt it from the limitation period. These statutes of repose apply with full force to all claims and courts cannot refuse to give the statute effect merely because it seems to operate harshly in a given case. The establishment of these time boundaries is a legislative prerogative. That body has the right to fix reasonable periods within which an action shall be brought and, within its sound discretion, determine the limitation period.... Deficiencies, if such there should be, in”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“plaintiff will be precluded from discovering harm or injury because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable nature of the wrongdoing in question. . . [or] when it is unrealistic to expect a layman to perceive the injury at the time of the wrongful act.”
4 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.