Butler v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Apparently the theory is, as disclosed by the appellant in her bill of review, that her attorney had connived with attorneys for appellee in the former suit, which resulted in the entry of the judgment sought to be set aside; and further fraudulent representations were charged against the appellee in the exchange of real property, which was determined by this court in the case of Mary A. Pridgen et al. v. Furnish et al., 11 S.W.2d 844 , which, was later determined by the Supreme Court, through the Commission of Appeals, in 23 S.W.2d 307 . * * * “A review of the opinions heretofore cited will disclose a sufficient statement of the facts necessary for a determination of the cause here. We have read the record in all of these appeals, and apparently the only new matter alleged by the plaintiffs below is the charge that a conspiracy was entered into by and between their attorney and the attorneys for appel-lee in the trial of the cause which is reported in [Pridgen v. Wagner] (Tex.Civ.App.) 72 S.W.2d 415 , and that such conspiracy entitles a third litigation between the same parties of the same subject-matter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. Church