Ew v. Dch’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably S.V. v. R.V. (1996), Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati (2006)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 19 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.
Relationships
Relies on Urie v. Thompson · Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. · DeRose v. Carswell · 107 Wash. 2d 72 - Tyson v. Tyson · Johnson v. St. Patrick's Hospital
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Few are the injuries that could not someday develop additional consequences. To adopt the theory advocated by EW would again postpone the statutory period indefinitely. Section 27-1-203, MCA, provides that “damages may be awarded ... for detriment ... certain to result in the future.” In Frisnegger v. Gibson (1979), 183 Mont. 57 , 598 P.2d 574 , we construed § 27-1-203 consistent with the Montana practice of instructing juries that damages need only be reasonably certain. 183 Mont, at 71 , 598 P.2d at 582 . Under the Frisnegger rationale, EW could have presented evidence of, and received damages for, future harm, if any.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is not necessary to know the total extent of damages that an act causes to begin the running of the statute of limitations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“EW contends that [the accused molester] fraudulently concealed the wrongful nature of Ms relationsMp with EW. We find EWs argument strained at best.... While [the accused’s] representations may have irn-tially constituted a species of fraudulent concealment, such representations are not sufficient to cure EWs subsequent knowledge. There is no indication that EW is incompetent or that she psychologically repressed the attacks. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that EW, upon reaching majority, was aware that child molestation was a wrongful act; nor does she deny her awareness. The furor caused by the disclosure of the molestation and EWs subsequent references to molestation as a child when she visited psychologists further support tMs conclusion. Rebanee upon a fraudulent representation must be reasonable. EWs continued rebanee on statements made [long ago at the time of the molestations] is not. At the very least, the state of facts was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to inquire.”
1 later decision 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.