Leasco Response, Inc. v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 381 · 1996
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2017
4 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Relies on Anderson v. Tucker · Kiesel v. Graham · Preyer v. Gulf Tank & Fabricating Co., Inc. · Kilby v. Ilgen (In Re Kilby)
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Within twenty years. — An action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state. (2) Within five years.— (a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state, or any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“what is the appropriate statute of limitations for an action brought in a federal court in Florida involving a judgment entered by that same court?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.