Busby v. Shafer’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2000
1 district · 21 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 Coombs v. Darling · Arrowood v. McMinn County · Reed, Admr. v. Rosenfield · 295 Ill. App. 504 - Nelson v. Richardson · Peters v. Tuell Dairy 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If when the cause of action shall accrue against any person he shall be out of the state, such action may be commenced within the terms herein respectively limited after the return of such person into the state; and if after such cause of action shall have accrued, such person shall depart from and reside out of the state, the time of his absence shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of such action; provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to an action for the foreclosure of any real estate mortgage, or to the foreclosure of any real estate mortgage by advertisement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The intent of these provisions tolling the running of the statute of limitations is to prevent a person from defeating a just claim merely by absenting himself from the state and thereby prevent service of process upon him and to give plaintiff the full period of limitation for the commencement of his action. A court may look to the policy underlying a statute and place on it a reasonable interpretation which will best accomplish its purpose rather than defeat it even though not literally within its language. Read v. Jerauld County, 70 S.D. 298 , 17 N.W.2d 269 . Recognizing this rule of construction, this court in Froelich v. Swafford, 35 S.D. 35 , 150 N.W. 476, 479, 893 , said: 'Where a party has, through an action in the courts of any state, a complete and adequate remedy for the redress of a wrong or the protection of a right— a remedy the enforcement of which is unaffected by 'the absence from such state of the one against whom he makes his claim to relief — such absence does not, under section 69 [SDC 33.0203], supra, extend the time within which he must bring an action to enforce his rights'."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here provision is made by statute for substituted service of process ... the provision makes the defendant as amenable to process as if he resided within the state and has the effect of nullifying any statute suspending the period of limitations (citations omitted).”
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.