Union Bus Lines v. Byrd’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 204 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 215 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably Ladner v. Reliance Corp. (1956), Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Gossett (1956)
9 federal appellate · 204 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 Lottman v. Cuilla · Temple Electric Light Co. v. Halliburton · Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. · Eaton & Prince Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co. · Burgess v. Adams
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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever there are two or more defendants in any suit brought in any county in this State and such suit is lawfully maintainable therein under the provisions of Article 1995 as to any of such defendants, then such suit may be maintained in such county against any and all necessary parties thereto.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule is that where, under the exceptions contained in Article 1995, a suit is properly maintainable against one defendant in a county other than the county of his residence, and the plaintiff therein joins another as defendant and seeks to sustain venue as to him under Section 29a, such other ■defendant is a necessary party within the meaning of Section 29a if the complete relief 'to which plaintiff is entitled under the facts of the case as against the defendant properly suable in that county can be obtained only in a suit to which both defendants are parties.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . Amberson’s cross-action against the third party is distinct and sever-able from the controversy involved in plaintiff’s suit against the main defendant. Consequently, the cross-action must be treated as an independent suit, and the venue thereof must be tested on the merits of the cross-action, and independent of the venue of the plaintiff’s suit.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.