Holland v. Couts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We are of the opinion that the case was properly prosecuted on behalf of the plaintiffs, who were non compos mentis, by a next friend. We approve the reasoning by which the court of Civil Appeals reached that conclusion, in their opinion [Holland v. Couts, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 515 , 98 S.W. 233 ]. The cases of Holzheiser v. Railway Co. [ 11 Tex.Civ.App. 677 ], 33 S.W. 887 , and Hughey v. Mosby [ 31 Tex.Civ.App. 76 ], 71 S.W. 395 , in the latter of which a writ of error was refused by this court, establish the doctrine, that a suit in the district court by a next friend in behalf of an insane person is properly brought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie Oil Co.