Ramirez v. Vela’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1957
4 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 39 Tex. Civ. App. 431 - McLain v. Garrison · Griffis v. Payne · Smith v. Smith
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It appears from the record that appellant, himself, called appellee as a-witness,, and, on direct examination elicited from him the facts that at that time he had possession of ‘ap- - proximately 'one hundred and fifty head of cattle that; were conveyed by Sil-vestre Ramirez during his lifetime’; that said cattle were those ‘involved in this lawsuit’; that he had ‘the bill of sale by which he claims possession of those cattle.’ Thereupon counsel for appellant asked appellee, the witness, to produce said bill of sale and hand it to counsel, which appellee did. Appellant then had the witness testify as to the date of the bill of sale, and of its registration, with reference to the time of the grantor’s death. The bill of sale was then put in evidence by ap-pellee, without objection from appellant. On cross-examination in his own behalf, appellee, the' witness, testified, over the objection from appellant that ‘it is a transaction. with a deceased person,’ that he received the bill of sale on August 4, 1932; that it ■was delivered to him by Silvestre Ra.mirez, the grantor; that he took it home and put it in his trunk, and delayed having it recorded because of the ‘way he delivered it to me, and I ■did not know whether it had to be recorded, I did not know whether it was "or was not recorded.’ • We conclude that' this testimony was so related to the facts elicited from the witness by "appellant,, -vtho'.first called’him as a witness, as to bring it within the exception in articl”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burris v. Levy“or was not recorded.’ • We conclude that' this testimony was so related to the facts elicited from the witness by”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burris v. Levy
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.