Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 SW2D 184 - Hamilton v. Booher

Hamilton v. Booher’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 1981
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1981

9 state decisions

40193919401950196019701980decided

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 Cavin v. Hill · 49 Tex. Civ. App. 62 - Lucas v. Patton · McCauley v. McElroy · Sweeney v. Johnson

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

  1. ““Appellee contends that the nature of the contract was such that it could not be performed in any county other than the one in which the land was located because it was for the breach of a contract to place him in possession of the land and that obviously the physical act of placing him in possession thereof could not be performed at any place other than upon the land itself, which was located in Lubbock County. We cannot agree to this contention. * * * ””
    1 later decision 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.