Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 949 SW2D 203 - Murray v. Fleischaker

Murray v. Fleischaker’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2015

8 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 Klemme v. Best · Dixon v. Shafton · Wilhoit v. Wilhoit · Lehnig v. Bornhop · M & D ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Wolff

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

  1. “Our review of the dismissal of a petition as being time-barred by the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations requires an examination of the pleadings, allowing them their broadest in-tendment,- regarding all facts alleged as true, and construing the allegations in favor-of the plaintiff. When an affirmative defense is asserted, such as a statute of limitations, .the petition may not be dismissed unless it clearlyestablishes on its- face, and without exception, that the action is barred. For an affirmative defense to be sustained upon a bare motion to dismiss, the defense must be irrefutably established by the plaintiffs pleadings. ■”
    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.