Baird v. Loeffler’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2023
3 federal appellate · 17 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 United States v. Hill · Gregory v. Flowers · Nokes v. Nokes · Van Meter v. Segal-Schadel Co. · 56 Ohio St. 2d 234 - Cook v. Matvejs
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [T]here is a distinction ‘between the operation of an amended statute of limitations which totally obliterates an existing substantive right and one which merely shortens the period of time in which the remedy can be realized.’ [Emphasis sic.] The latter application of an amended statute is not unlawful as long as a prospective claimant is still afforded a reasonable time in which to enforce his right.” Baird , at 535, quoting Cook , at 237.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Deskins v. Young“is not unlawful as long as a prospective claimant is still afforded a reasonable time in which to enforce his right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lundblad v. Celeste
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.