Morrison v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions

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

1. “consistent with their purposes of promoting justice, avoiding unnecessary delay, and preventing the litigation of stale claims.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc. · Damian v. Mountain Parks Electric, Inc.

2. “[hlad [defendant] not insisted that the PUC was the proper forum for [plaintiffs'] dispute, the three-year statute of limitation [sic] would easily have been met by virtue of the initial lawsuit filed by [plaintiffs]. {12 The district court found, and we agree, that there was no evidence to support plaintiffs' contention that defendant's conduct induced the delay in plaintiffs' refilling of their action. We also agree with the district court's ruling that it was not defendant's conduct, but rather plaintiffs' unexplained eighteen-month delay in instituting the PUC proceeding, that caused the statute to run. As the district court noted, plaintiffs failed to take steps to preserve the statute of limitations, such as by refiling and staying their suit in the district court before or during the PUC proceeding. We conclude that the district court did not err in ruling that the one-year extension of the statute of limitations was not applicable based on these facts. C. Equitable Tolling Doctrine "118 Plaintiffs also argue that the district court should have held that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled in light of the facts and procedural history of this case. We disagree. e 114 "[Elquity may require a tolling of the statutory period where flexibility is required to accomplish the goals of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Damian v. Mountain Parks Electric, Inc.

3. “In the event that a particular criminal defendant must obtain appellate relief to avoid dismissal of a pending malpractice action, or if proceeding with a malpractice action would jeopardize the criminal defendant’s rights, the trial court may stay the malpractice action pending resolution of the criminal case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rantz v. Kaufman