Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 SW 255 - King v. Murray

King v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 1956
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1956

9 state decisions

4019111920193019401950decided

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 43 Tex. Civ. App. 421 - International Harvester Co. of America v. Campbell · Robb v. San Antonio Street Railway Co. · Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. Roberts · Thomas v. Hammond · 39 Tex. Civ. App. 500 - Bringhurst v. Texas Co.

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. ““Nothing is better settled as a rule of pleading than that, in declaring upon a contract required by the statute of frauds to he in writing, it is not essential to the validity of the pleading that it should aver that such contract was in writing.””
    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.