Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 Tex. 404 - Burchfield v. Tanner

Burchfield v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
August 2002
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably Adams v. Houston Lighting & Power Company (1958), Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Hunt (1950)

51 state decisions

1501944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Caylat v. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. · Weston v. Gilmore

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

  1. ““We cannot agree that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is authorized by Rules 439, 440, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to remitti-tur. The vice in the trial court’s judgment was not that same was excessive in amount; its vice lay in the fact that the court had no authority to substitute its finding for that of the jury and in that way prevent what would otherwise have been, in the light of the pleadings and evidence, a conflict in the finding. The question is one of authority to render judgment rather than one of excessiveness in the amount of the award.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““when the verdict has been affirmed in open court and the jury have separated and become accessible to the parties, the only remedy for a mistake is by setting the verdict aside and granting a new trial....” 3 [This rule] guards against any possible irreparable injury to the parties litigant, and satisfies every requirement of complete justice. The only consideration of public policy involved in denying a correction in a clear case of clerical mistake is the expense and delay incident to a new trial.... We are clearly of the view that the safer and more salutary rule is to deny a correction in such cases; and to order a new trial as the full measure of the relief against the mistake.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * The Caylat case, supra, expressly and directly holds that after a jury has been discharged and its members have separated the only remedy for a mistake in the nature of a clerical error in transcribing a verdict is to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. That is the relief and the only relief which the court is authorized to grant.”
    1 later decision 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.