Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 F. Supp. 2d 675 - Hunt v. Smith

67 F. Supp. 2d 675 - Hunt v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2012

1 state decisions

40199920002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Davis v. Passman

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. “cognizant of the fact that the statute of limitations may have run in this case. However, the expiration of the statute of limitations does not automatically require extension of time for service. Absent a showing of good cause for the delay in service, the court has discretion to refuse an extension or even order a dismissal notwithstanding that the statute of limitations would bar refiling. A Rule 4(m) dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice. Nonetheless, a dismissal “without prejudice” does not mean “without consequence.” The “without prejudice” condition permits a plaintiff to refile the complaint as if it had never been filed. A Rule 4(m) dismissal does not however, give the Plaintiff a right to refile without the consequence of time defenses, such as the statute of limitations. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has cautioned, “[t]he lesson to the federal plaintiffs lawyer is not to take any chances. Treat the 120 days with the respect reserved for a time bomb.””
    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.