Maughan v. SW Servicing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
758 F.2d 1381 · 1985
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 154 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 212 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Riley v. Presnell (1991), United States v. O'Block (1986)
36 federal appellate · 154 district · 9 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. Diebold, Inc. · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States · Dayco Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · 10 Cal. 3d 874 - Whitfield v. Roth
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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the issue of when a plaintiff knew or with reasonable diligence should have known of a cause of action is a question of fact for the [factfin-der].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While cases involving statute of limitations defenses frequently lend themselves to summary disposition, a court should not grant summary judgment for the defendant if there is a viable issue of fact as to when the limitation period began. Dzenits v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 494 F.2d 168, 171 (10th Cir.1974); 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2734, at 421 (2d ed. 1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“rule that the statute begins to run as soon as a plaintiff becomes aware that a particular substance is suspected to cause cancer in some people would be absurd, for it would force the plaintiff to file suit against all suspected sources of carcinogens simply to prevent the statute from running”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.