Cronin v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Wenke Ex Rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co. (2004), In re C.K.G. (2005)
6 federal appellate · 65 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 Wayne v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Harrison v. Schrader · Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Department of Revenue · Woodroof v. City of Nashville · Goad v. Celotex Corp.
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the one-year statute of limitations governs the time within which legal proceedings may be commenced after a cause of action accrues, the three-year medical malpractice statute of repose limits the time within which an action may be brought, but it is entirely unrelated to the accrual of a cause of action and can, in fact, bar a cause of action before it has accrued. That distinction has prompted courts to hold that statutes of repose are substantive and extinguish both the right and the remedy, while statutes of limitation are merely procedural, extinguishing only the remedy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In no event shall any [medical malpractice] action be brought more than three (3) years after the date on which the negligent act or omission occurred except where there is fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendant....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If [an] action is commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation, but the judgment or decree is rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding the plaintiffs right of action ... the plaintiff ... may, from time to time, commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or arrest.”
2 later decisions 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.