Brubaker v. Cavanaugh’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 318 · 1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Aicher Ex Rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund (2000), Farley v. Engelken (1987)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 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 Flemming v. Nestor · Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · Schweiker v. Wilson · Barwick v. Celotex Corp. · State Ex Rel. Schneider v. Liggett
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[Statutes of limitation] are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the avoidable and unavoidable delay. . . . They sometimes expire before a claimant has sustained any injury ... or before he knows he has sustained an injury .... If the limitation period is otherwise reasonable, a claimant is not thereby deprived of his right to due process.’ [Citations omitted.] “. . . The state has a legitimate interest in preventing stale claims. The statute provides a reasonable length of time in which to bring suit. Although it works a hardship on particular plaintiffs, there is no violation of due process in its application.” 741 F.2d at 321 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a rational relation exists between the shorter limitation period for health care providers and the legitimate objective of providing quality health care in Kansas. Plaintiff recites much evidence that there is no such relation, but he cites nothing which indicates that the legislature's studied choice, made in a context in which all interested parties are able to contribute, was irrational.”
2 later decisions 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.