Culver v. Pickens’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports (1953), Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride (1958)
6 federal appellate · 112 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 Boren v. Billington · Hendricks v. Martin · Ross' Estate v. Abrams
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'In Ross' Estate v. Abrams, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W. 705 , 709, Chief Justice Fly quoted with approval from Pomeroy on Equity, Vo1. 5, Sec. 1442, as follows; 'Laches, in legal significance, is not mere delay but delay that works a disadvantage to another. So long as parties are in the same condition, it”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is the general rule that under our blended system, where both law and equity are administered by the same court, statutes of limitation apply to equitable actions the same as to legal actions. Turner v. Hunt, 131 Tex. 492 , 116 S.W.2d 688 , 117 A.L.R. 1066 ; Hendricks v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1047 ; Huggins v. Johnston, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 937 ; 27 Tex. Jur. p. 24, Sec. 7. However, it is conceivable that the circumstances of a given case might be so extraordinary that to deny a defendant the defense of laches would work a grave injustice. In that situation it has been held that such defense may not be precluded even though the statutory period has not run. City of Corpus Christi ex rel. Harris v. Flato, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 433 , error dismissed; 27 Tex.Jur. p. 25, Sec. 7. Conceding that to be the correct rule, then the question before us is whether or not it affirmatively appears from the allegations or petitioners’ second amended original petition that such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case, as a matter of law, as would bar the action notwithstanding the fact that the statutory period of limitation has not ran.””
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.