Goad v. Celotex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
831 F.2d 508 · 1987
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Boudreau v. Baughman (1988), Harding v. K.C. Wall Products, Inc. (1992)
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In contrast to statutes of limitation, statutes of repose serve primarily to relieve potential defendants from anxiety over liability for acts committed long ago.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"this distinction does not exalt form over substance, nor does it subject the Constitution to the whims of the States in labeling their laws.... [T]he labels serve a useful purpose in describing the various interests underlying the two types of laws. `The abstract logic of the distinction between substantive rights and remedial or procedural rights may not be clear-cut, but it has been found a workable concept to point up the real and valid difference between rules in which stability is of prime importance and those in which flexibility is a more important value.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is felt, and we agree, that the principal purpose of limiting statutes is the prevention of stale claims, and that the repose of defendants is merely an incidental benefit of such statutes. See Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314 , 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1142 , 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945). Statutes of limitations, then, are primarily instruments of public policy and of court management, and do not confer upon defendants any right to be free from liability, although this may be their effect.”
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.