Wagner v. Riske’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
201 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 203 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Cherne Industries, Inc. v. Magallanes (1989), Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala County (1984)
201 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 McCutchen v. Purinton · Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Stewart & Threadgill · Callaghan v. Estate of Grenet · San Antonio Water Works Co. v. Maury & 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 203 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In spite of the above rules, a failure of a trial court to prepare and file findings of fact or conclusions of law under Rule 296, or additional or amended findings of fact or conclusions of law under Rule 298, will not call for a reversal of the trial court’s judgment, if the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury in the premises. San Antonio Water Works Co. v. Maury & Co., 72 Tex. 112 , 12 S.W. 166 .””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““After the judge so files original findings of fact and conclusions of law, either party may, within five days, request of him specified further, additional, or amended findings; and the judge shall, within five days after such request, and not later, prepare and file such further, other or amended findings and conclusions as may be proper, whereupon they shall be considered as filed in due time.” (emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is evident that one of the main purposes of the above rules is to enable parties to prosecute appeals without the expense of a statement of facts. Under Article 2208, which is in the same language as Rule 296, it was held to be the general rule that the failure of the trial court to file conclusions of law and fact constituted reversible error, where the party complaining complied with statutory requirements in an effort to secure such filing. [Citations omitted.] In such cases injury is presumed, unless the contrary appears. [Citation omitted.] Since Rule 296 is in the same language as Article 2208, it ought to be given the same construction and held to accord the same rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roberts v. Roberts
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.