Thomason v. Veal’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2012
5 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 Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co. · Sheffield v. Hogg · Hager v. Stakes · Cook v. Pollard · Fischer v. Rio Tire 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It has many times been held by the courts of this State that those who are necessary parties to a suit are such persons as have or claim a direct interest in the object and subject matter of the suit and whose interests will necessarily be affected by any judgment that may be rendered therein. Such persons are not only proper parties but are necessary and indispensable parties, plaintiff or defendant. Cook v. Pollard, 70 Tex. 723 , 8 S.W. 512 ; Fischer v. Rio Tire Co., Tex.Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 751, 757 .’ ” Walsh v. Walsh, Tex.Civ. App., 255 S.W.2d 240 ; Simmons v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 847 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Douglas v. Butcher
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.