Pena v. Sling’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 1981 · most notably Langdeau v. Burke Investment Company (1962), Stubbs v. United States (1980)
2 federal appellate · 39 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 Farmers' Seed & Gin Co. v. Brooks · Richardson v. D. S. Cage Co. · Coalson v. Holmes · Thomson v. Locke · Phillipson v. Flynn
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Lands. — Suits for the recovery of lands or damages thereto, or to remove incumbrances upon the title to land, or to quiet the title to lands, or to prevent or stay waste on lands, must be brought in the county in which the land, or a part thereof, may lie.’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Partition. — Suits for the partition of land or other property may be brought in the county where such land or other property, or a part thereof, may be, or in the county in which one or more of the defendants reside, or in the county of the residence of any defendant who may assert an adverse claim to or interest in such property, or seeks to recover the title to the same. Nothing herein shall be construed to fix venue of a suit to recover the title to land.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under the express provisions of Article 2007, R.C.S.1925, supra, a statutory plea of privilege or venue, duly filed, is ‘prima facie proof of the defendant’s right to change of venue.’ It follows that such a plea is sufficient, in law, to require the plaintiff to assume the burden of pleading and proving that he has a statutory right to maintain his suit in the county where he has filed the same. The burden on the plaintiff to prove his right to such venue is as complete and absolute as is his burden to plead the same. Richardson v. D. S. Cage Co., 113 Tex. 152 , 252 S.W. 747 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Greenville Gas & Fuel Co. v. Commercial Finance Co., 117 Tex. 124 , 298 S.W. 550 . * * * “ * * * It follows that since the burden was on Pena et al. to bring themselves under exception 13, the burden was on them to prove that a land title suit, or suit to recover land, was not involved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hawkins v. Gilger
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.