Jones v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably People v. Wiedemer (1993), Bertrand v. Board of County Commissioners of Park County (1994)
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 76 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 Owens v. Brochner · Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners v. Jorgensen · Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District · Peterson v. Colorado Potato Flake & Mfg. Co. · Griffin v. SW Devanney & Co., Inc.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: [[Image here]] (c) All actions against sheriffs, coroners, police officers, firefighters, national guardsmen, or any other law enforcement authority....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dawson v. Reider · Reider v. Dawson“[W]e have concluded that to deny an automobile accident victim full tort recovery is contrary to the General Assembly’s intent in enacting this section. Tort actions like the one in issue evidently were considered by the legislature to further the legislative objectives of the Act, and thus are allowed under this section. To apply the general two-year statute of limitations, as urged by [the defendant], would have the effect of prohibiting an insured like [the plaintiff] from filing suit unless she meets the requirements of the [No-Fault] Act, while at the same time denying her the benefits of the Act’s special statute of limitations. In light of the legislative purpose of fully compensating the victim, this result seems incongruous and contrary to legislative intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: (a) Tort actions, including but not limited to actions for negligence....”
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.