Resolution Trust Corp. v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 308 Ill. App. 3d 80 - Lease Resolution Corp. v. Larney (1999), Digital Design Group, Inc. v. Information Builders, Inc. (2001)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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 12 U.S.C. § 1811 (Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 1821
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Scharffe v. Perkins · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... Oklahoma follows the discovery rule allowing limitations in tort cases to be tolled until the injured party knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury. The rule is applied to delay the running of the statute of limitations. It, much like the doctrine of adverse domination, arises from the inability of the injured, despite the exercise of due diligence, to know of the injury or its cause. The purpose of the rule is to exclude the period of tiime during which the injured party is reasonably unaware thalt] an injury has been sustained so that people in that class have the same rights as those who suffer an immediate ascertainable injury...."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We find persuasive the reasoning of those courts which hold that to extend the doctrine to cases involving conduct less culpable than fraud would be to eliminate the statute of limitations in director-liability actions. Furthermore, this reasoning is supported by recent legislative enactments allowing the insertion of liability-limiting clauses in bylaws and certificates of incorporation. Therefore, we find that application of the doctrine of adverse domination to delay accrual or toll the statute of limitations is limited to situations involving fraudulent conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alexander v. Sanford“to delay the running of the statute of limitations ..., [and] it rests on the inability of the injured party, despite the exercise of due diligence, to know of the injury or its cause. Its purpose is to exclude the period of time during which the injured party is reasonably unaware that an injury has been sustained so that people in that class have the same rights as those who suffer an immediately ascertainable injury.”
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.