O'REILLY v. Dock’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2016
3 federal appellate · 9 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 Jepson v. Stubbs · Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc. · Krug v. Sterling Drug, Inc. · Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff · Dixon v. Shafton
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he cause of action shall not be deemed to accrue when the wrong is done or the technical breach of contract or duty occurs, but when the damage resulting therefrom is sustained and capable of ascertainment, and, if more than one item of damage, then the last item, so that all resulting damage may be recovered, and full and complete relief obtained.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We do not ignore Plaintiffs’ contention that § 516.097 is the applicable statute of limitations. ... We have considered that argument and reject it. Section 516.097.4(1) provides that § 516.097 shall not apply if an' action is barred by another provision of law. As the trial judge correctly found, the five-year statute, § 516.120, applies, because Plaintiffs’ action was an action upon a contract. Moreover, as our supreme court has explained, § 516.097 is a statute of repose “enacted in response to case decisions ... that had done away with the necessity of privity between the plaintiff and the architect, engineer or builder.” That is not this ease. Clearly there was a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant, and this suit charged Defendant with breaching that contract. Section 516.097 does not apply here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[m]ere ignorance on the part of a plaintiff does not toll the statute of limitations where reasonable diligence on his or her part would have revealed the injury or wrongful conduct,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rademeyer v. Farris
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.