Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 SW3D 719 - Roventini v. Ocular Sciences, Inc.

Roventini v. Ocular Sciences, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

16 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 334th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Barker CATV Construction, Inc. v. Ampro, Inc. · Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. Wallace · Intermarque Automotive Products, Inc. v. Feldman · Disco MacHine of Liberal Co. v. Payton

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

  1. “rule 34.5(c) does not permit the record in a restricted appeal to be supplemented unless it is clear that the item to be considered was before the trial court when it rendered the default judgment,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.