Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 SW2D 652 - Joiner v. Currin

Joiner v. Currin’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 1972
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1972

4 state decisions

2019381940195019601970decided

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 St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Whitaker & Bonner · City Water Company v. State · Bowles v. Mitchell · 19 Tex. Civ. App. 22 - Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Scott · Eaton v. Whisenant

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.

  1. ““Article 2310, R.S.1925, reads: “ ‘When property within the limits of this State has been placed in the hands of a receiver who has taken charge of such property, such receiver may, in his official capacity, sue or be sued in any court of this State having jurisdiction of the cause of action, without leave of the court appointing him. If judgment is recovered against said receiver, the court shall order said judgment paid out of any funds in the hands of said receiver as such receiver’. “Obviously, this statute authorizes suits against receivers in their official capacities in any court having jurisdiction of the causes of action. The statute is broad enough to embrace any kind of a suit, except one that interferes with the possession, custody, control and disposition of property in the hands of a receiver. The determination of the question of indebtedness, due to an unauthorized disposition of one’s property, is clearly within the power of a District Court, and such creditor has the undoubted right to have the court determine the question of his debt. He is not compelled to assert his rights in the court appointing the receiver.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.