Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 Tex. 82 - Ex Parte Elmer Renfro

Ex Parte Elmer Renfro’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
6
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably Ex Parte Helms (1953), Davis v. Bayless (1995)

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

120192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““The ordinary course to pursue in such cases where a receiver desires to obtain possession of property in the hands of a stranger to the receivership suit, claiming adversely, is either for the receiver to bring an action against the third party, or for the plaintiff to make him a party to the suit and have the receivership extended to him. Contempt proceedings are not appropriate.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The bank * *' * contends that the deposit was of the ordinary character evidenced' by the deposit certificate, and that it was not due andl payable when demand for its payment was made by the receiver. This affirmation and denial, of course, make a justiciable question, and the bank and its cashier were clearly entitled to try the question under due process of law.””
    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.