Tunstill v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * where one of several defendants files a plea of privilege to be sued in the county of his residence, and the plea is sustained if the cause of ac tion is a joint action growing out of joint liability of all the defendants, the suit must be transferred as an entirety to the county of the residence of the defendant whose plea is sustained. On the other hand, if the cause of action against the several defendants is severable, or joint and several, the court should retain jurisdiction over the action in so far as it concerns the defendants whose pleas of privilege have not been sustained, and should transfer the suit in so far as it concerns the defendant whose plea is sustained.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morse v. Fisher · C. Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co.

2. ““ ‘While this subdivision is not jurisdictional in the sense that it may not be waived, yet it is mandatory in the sense that, when any one necessary defendant objects in proper time and manner to a trial of the cause in any county other than that in which the land is situated, the cause must be transferred to that county.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Corpening v. Corpening · Fagadau v. Sand Springs Home

3. ““Even if the suit is correctly classified as one within the terms of subdivision 14, the Court of Civil Appeals should not have rendered judgment transferring the cause to Gregg County. There was no pleading to support that judgment. No party to the suit sought by pleading to have the cause transferred to Gregg County. Subdivision 14 of Article 1995, which provides that suits for the recovery of land, etc., must be brought in the county where the land may lie relates to venue and is not jurisdictional. Every district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of such suits; and since the requirement is one of venue or privilege, and is not jurisdictional, it may be waived. De La Vega v. League, 64 Tex. 205, 214 ; South Texas Development Co. v. Williams, 130 Tex. 217 , 107 S.W.2d 378 ; State v. Patterson, Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W. 224 ; Wolf v. Willingham, 43 Tex.Civ.App. 167 , 94 S.W. 362 ; Lanier v. Looney, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 347, 350 , application for writ of error refused. As said in the case last cited, this statute ‘merely furnishes a venue privilege of which a party may avail himself.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ratner v. Powers