Korwek v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc. (1996), Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp. (1999)
1 federal appellate ·
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 Korwek v. Hunt · Jack v. Travelers Insurance · Braxton v. Virginia Folding Box Co. · DiCostanzo v. Chrysler Corp. · 415 F. Supp. 594 - Farris v. Sears, Roebuck & 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although some ... cases speak in terms of the filing of the motion to intervene “tolling” the statute of limitations, a more accurate description is that the date of filing of a successful intervention motion is taken to be the date the action is brought, for limitations purposes---The rule would not seem to be applicable to a case, such as that presented here, in which intervention was denied and thus did not initiate the bringing of an action, and what is actually sought is the tolling of the statute of limitations for a new, different action brought subsequent to the denial of the motion to intervene.”
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.