Hupman v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 497 · 1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co. (2006), Occhino v. United States (1982)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen · Comptroller Ex Rel. Virginia Military Institute v. King · King v. Blankenship · Barksdale v. H.O. Engen, Inc. · Phipps v. Sutherland
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We all properly feel disinclined to apply legislation retroactively in the absence of explicit statutory language. The availabilitythe conceded applicabilityof the label as the case was argued to the court minimized the attention paid by the district judge as to (1) what actually was and what was not retroactive, and (2) what kinds of looking back do, and what kinds do not, appeal to mankind's collective sense that it would be unfair to apply an enactment to events viewed as antedating its passage. (footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it has been held that the right to set up the bar of a statute of limitations as a defense to a cause of action after the statute has run is a vested right, and cannot be taken away by legislation, either by a repeal of the statute without saving clause, or by an affirmative act; and that it is immaterial whether the action is for the recovery of real or personal property, or for the recovery of a money demand, or for the recovery of damages for a tort.”
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.