Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 SW2D 157 - Thompson v. Corbin

Thompson v. Corbin’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
November 1967
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1967

7 state decisions

30194019501960decided

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 Stillman v. Hirsch · James v. Fulcrod · Gardner v. Rundell · Hoge v. George · State v. Clark

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

  1. ““Defendants’ 3rd, 4th and 5th propositions are grounded upon a special exception that ‘there are no allegations sufficient to impress a trust in favor of plaintiffs’ in and to any of the mineral interests acquired by Thompson. It is to be observed from the pleadings that the consideration for the agreement consisted of the mutual promises above discussed. It is further alleged that the interests here involved were acquired under said agreement or arrangement and subject thereto. If so, the mutual promises and their execution entered into the consideration at the time the properties were acquired. Their joint undertakings were to be confined to operations in mineral interests and restricted to an area known as the East Texas oil field. We need not determine if the petition alleges an express or implied trust or a combination of both. Litigation arising out of similar joint adventure or partnership undertakings as we have here, have heretofore been recognized and sustained by our courts adversely to defendants’ contention.” Citing authorities.”
    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.