State v. Dyer’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District (1996), State v. Terrell (1979)
2 federal appellate · 74 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 Florida v. United States · Lyons-Thomas Hardware Co. v. Perry Stove Manufacturing Co. · Petrogradsky Mejdunarodny Kommerchesky Bank v. National City Bank · Edwards v. Morton · State v. Kennedy
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Edwards v. Morton, 92 Tex. 152, 153, 154 , 46 S.W. 792, 793 , where the strict letter of a statute was not followed, the court said: ‘The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature, and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act.’ A too literal construction of a statute, which would prevent the enforcement of it according to its true intent, should be avoided, Bowman v. Puckett, 144 Tex. 125, 128 , 188 S.W.2d 571 . In ascertaining the true intention of the legislature in the enactment of subdivision 7 of Article 1387, and the general purpose of the statute of which it is a part, we take into consideration the existing condition of the law at the time of the enactment of the statute and the general rules then established and applicable to its subject matter. McBride v. Clayton, 140 Tex. 71, 76, 77 , 166 S.W.2d 125 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since a corporation is a creature of the state by which it is chartered, the right to dissolve the corporation without its consent belongs exclusively to the state”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We refer briefly to some of the general rules as to dissolution of corporations. Since a corporation is a creature of the state by which it is chartered, the right to dissolve the corporation without its consent belongs exclusively to the state. (Citing authorities.) Whether the franchise of a corporation is to be forfeited depends upon the will of the body that created it. The forfeiture or the dissolution of the corporation cannot be claimed in a collateral proceeding merely because a ground of forfeiture may exist, and ordinarily the forfeiture or dissolution must be declared in a judicial proceeding instituted for that purpose. (Citing authorities.) Such suit, in the absence of an express statute to the contrary, can be instituted only by the State.””
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.