Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 892 P2D 817 - Bauman v. Day

Bauman v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
7
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

2 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (1995), 1000 Virginia Ltd. Partnership v. Vertecs Corp. (2006)

2 district · 38 state decisions

1401995200020102020decided

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 Poffenberger v. Risser · 147 Cal. App. 3d 805 - April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV · Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia · Pizel v. Zuspann · Adamson v. University of Alaska

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e hold that in the absence of a statute directing a contrary rule, the discovery rule is applicable to common law contract causes of action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A common thread seems to run through all the types of actions where courts have applied the discovery rule. The injury or the act causing the injury, or both, have been difficult for the plaintiff to detect. In most instances, in fact, the defendant has been in a far superior position to comprehend the act and the injury. And in many, the defendant had reason to believe the plaintiff remained ignorant he had been wronged. Thus, there is an underlying notion that plaintiffs should not suffer where circumstances prevent them from knowing they have been harmed. And often this is accompanied by the corollary notion that defendants should not be allowed to knowingly profit from their injuree’s ignorance.”
    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.