Evans v. Boyle Flying Service, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 733 So. 2d 199 - Barnes v. Singing River Hosp. Systems (1999), 697 So. 2d 1179 - City of Jackson v. Lumpkin (1997)
1 federal appellate · 29 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 612 So. 2d 1087 - City of Natchez, Miss. v. Sullivan · McCullen v. State Ex Rel. Alexander · Sheffield v. Reece, Sheriff · Loe Et Ux v. Lenhard · Ernest v. Faler
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.
“Unthought of results must be avoided if possible, especially if injustice follows, and [an] unwise purpose will not be imputed to the Legislature when a reasonable construction is possible.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] statute of limitation is distinguishable from a statute of repose in the sense that the latter `cuts off the right of action after a specified period of time measured from the delivery of a product or the completion of work. [Statutes of repose] do so regardless of the time of the accrual of the cause of action or of notice of the invasion of a legal right.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It does not appear reasonable to subsequently bar a person's cause of action when they had no initial reason to know that time was running. In other words, should a person be prevented from recovering on a claim, i.e. an injury for which redress is guaranteed by our Constitution and statutory law, by being barred by a limitation period, in actuality a statute of repose if it were so construed, when they should not have reasonably known that damage had occurred. To hold that a person can not recover when they did not or could not have been able to discover the damage within sixty days after the spraying works an injustice.”
2 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.