Arrington v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 1980 · most notably Finlay v. Jones (1968), State v. Standard (1967)
31 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 Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Haynes
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It therefore appears that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals has been superseded by the final judgment of the Supreme Court. In compliance with article 1773, Rev.St., a mandate was issued to the district court of Johnson county, and to enforce which execution may issue, and process issued from the Court of Civil Appeals to enforce its corrected judgment would necessarily conflict with the process issued from the Supreme Court to enforce its judgment. The judgment of the Supreme Court disposed of the whole case, and was to be enforced by process from that court, and, in our opinion, the failure of appellees to complain of the error in the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was a waiver of the right now to com plain. There is no ambiguity in the judgment rendered in the Court of Civil Appeals, nor does it appear from any of its recitals that it was not the judgment which the court intended to render. This amend- . ment is an attempt to correct or amend a judicial mistake and not a clerical error or mistake in the entry of the judgment, and article 2229, Revised Statutes, does not apply.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamilton v. Hamilton“: “It is the settled rule of law in this state that a court rendering a judgment may correct a clerical but not a judicial error after the term in which the judgment was rendered. has expired. * * ■* “The decisions of the -courts of this state also hold that a court may not correct its judgment after the term in which the judgment was rendered, except where the judgment as entered on the records of the court is not the judgment rendered by the court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conley v. Conley
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.