Borderlon v. Peck’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (1990), S.V. v. R.V. (1996)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 120 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso))
Relationships
Relies on Ruebeck v. Hunt · Sherman v. Sipper · Nichols v. Smith · Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp. · Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beaumont Rice Mills
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The estoppel effect of fraudulent concealment ends when a party learns of facts, conditions, or circumstances which would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry, which, if pursued, would lead to discovery of the concealed cause of action. Knowledge of such facts is in law equivalent to knowledge of the cause of action.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here a defendant is under a duty to make disclosure but fraudulently conceals the existence of a cause of action from the party to whom it belongs, the defendant is estopped from relying on the defense of limitations until the party learns of the right of action or should have learned thereof through the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“Texas courts have long adhered to the view that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, and have consistently held that a party will not be permitted to avail himself of the protection of a limitations statute when by his own fraud he has prevented the other party from seeking redress within the limitations period. To reward a wrongdoer for his own fraudulent contrivance would make the statute a means of encouraging rather than preventing fraud.”
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.