Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 Tex. 323 - Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.

Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

343
cited by 343 later decisions
3
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 340 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 343 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Lawrence v. Kozlowski (1976), Board of Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks (1951)

3 federal appellate · 340 state decisions

890194619501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Crowell v. Benson · Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough · Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. City of Dallas

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

  1. ““ . . . ‘In such a case the issue is not whether or not the agency came to the proper fact conclusion on the basis of conflicting evidence, but whether or not it acted arbitrarily and without regard to the facts. Hence it is generally recognized that where the order of the agency under attack involves the exercise of the sound judgment and discretion of the agency in a matter committed to it by the Legislature, the court will sustain the order if the action of the agency in reaching such conclusion is reasonably supported by substantial evidence. This does not mean that a mere scintilla of evidence will suffice, nor does it mean that the court is bound to select the testimony of one side, with absolute blindness to that introduced by the other. After all, the court is to render justice in the case. The record is to be considered as a whole, and it is for the court to determine what constitutes substantial evidence. The court is not to substitute its discretion for that committed to the agency by the Legislature, but is to sustain the agency if it is reasonably supported by substantial evidence before the court. If the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds could not have reached the conclusion that the agency must have reached in order to justify its action, then the order must be set aside.’ ””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any interested person affected by the conservation laws of this State relating to crude petroleum oil or natural gas, and the waste thereof, including this Act, or by any rule, regulation or order made or promulgated by the Commission thereunder, and who may be dissatisfied therewith, shall have the right to file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction in Travis County, Texas, and not elsewhere, against the Commission, or the members thereof, as defendants, to test the validity of said laws, rules, regulations or orders. Such suit shall be advanced for trial and be determined as expeditiously as possible and no postponement thereof or continuance shall be granted except for reasons deemed imperative by the Court. In all such trials, the burden of proof shall be upon the party complaining of such laws, rules, regulation or order; and such laws, rules, regulation or order so complained of shall be deemed prima facie valid.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The judgment and discretion of the commissioners’ court in the instant case having been exercised in good faith and without fraud, not arbitrarily, nor in gross abuse of discretion, there is nothing in the record which would warrant an annulment of the order, either upon collateral or direct attack. “If it be said the commissioners’ court could not judicially know the exact population of Breckenridge, still, taking into consideration what they did judicially know, and the means of knowledge and investigation shown in the certificate, it is conclusive that when they acted they had sufficient facts before them to authorize the order which they entered. No principle of law is better settled than that acts of discretion and findings of fact on the part of public officers to which such power is confided, including commissioners’ courts, will not be reviewed on appeal.” Citing cases.”
    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.