Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 Tex. 307 - Zachry v. Robertson Dba.

Zachry v. Robertson Dba.’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
February 1983
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 1983 · most notably Connell v. Spires (1954), Government Personnel Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wear (1952)

42 state decisions

22019481950196019701980decided

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 Bailey v. Federal Supply Co. · 46 Tex. Civ. App. 503 - Hubert v. Hubert

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

  1. ““When the plaintiff [Orange in our case] instituted this suit in Tarrant County he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Tarrant County as to all matters arising out of or incidental to the subject matter of the suit, and thereby waived his right to be sued in the county of his domicile in a cross-action arising out of such cause of action. Bailey v. Federal Supply Co., Tex.Com.App., 287 S.W. 1090 ; Mumme v. Spies, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 137 .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . When the plaintiff instituted this suit in Tarrant County he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Tarrant County as to all matters arising cut of or incidental to the subject matter of the suit, and thereby waived his right to be sued in the county of his domicile in a cross-action arising out of such cause of action . Where a cross-action has been filed asking for affirmative relief as to matter directly connected with the subject matter of the original cause of action, after the cross-action has been filed it is too late for the plaintiff to dismiss the original suit and object to having the issues of the cross-action determined in the forum of the original suit, rather than in the forum of the residence of the defendant in the cross-action . . . ””
    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.