Nelson v. Krusen’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 157 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc (1987), Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (1990)
18 federal appellate · 157 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Relies on Swilley v. Hughes · Payton v. Abbott Labs · In Re Quinlan · Southwest Battery Corp. v. Owen · Middleton v. Texas Power & Light 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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding any other law, no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed; provided that, minors under the age of 12 years shall have until their 14th birthday in which to file, or have filed on their behalf, the claim. Except as herein provided, this subchapter applies to all per sons regardless of minority or other legal disability.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Neagle v. Nelson · Weiner v. Wasson“(A)rticle 5.82 as applied here violates the open courts provision by cutting off a cause of action before the party knows, or reasonably should know, that he is injured.... (Emphasis added) We hold that Article 5.82, section 4 of the Insurance Code is unconstitutional, under the open courts provision, to the extent it purports to cut off an injured person’s right to sue before the person has a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong and bring suit. (Emphasis added) Neither Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.1983), nor Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.1977), is to the contrary.... The statutes of limitation were not unconstitutional as applied to the parties in Sax and Robinson .... We hold that Article 5.82, section 4 of the Insurance Code as applied in this case violates the open courts provision of Article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. (Emphasis added)”
5 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.