Jordan v. Crudgington’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Central Education Agency v. Independent School District (1953), Ex Parte Johnson (1985)
45 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 Arnold v. Leonard · Dendy v. Wilson · White v. White · Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. State · Greene v. Robison
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 1. Judicial power; courts in which vested “Section 1. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in Courts of Civil Appeals, in a Court of Criminal Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law... “The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto. As amended Nov. 8,1977, eff. Jan. 1, 1978.” (Emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Art. 1970-62.2 County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County “Section 1. (a) There is created a court to be held in Tarrant County to be known and designated as the ‘County Court at Law. No. 2 of Tarrant County.’ “(b) The County Court at Law of Tar-rant County shall be hereafter known and designated as the ‘County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County.’ “Sec. 2. (a) The County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County has jurisdiction of all civil matters and causes, original and appellate, over which by the general laws of the state the county court of the county would have jurisdiction, and its jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the County Court at Law of Tarrant County in civil matters and causes, original and appellate. This provision does not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioners court or of the county judge of Tarrant County as the presiding officer of that court as to roads, bridges, and public highways, and matters which are now within the jurisdiction of the commissioners court or of the judge of the county court of Tarrant County. The county judge of Tarrant County shall be the judge of the county court of Tarrant County, and all ex officio duties of the county judge shall be exercised by the judge of the county court of Tarrant County. (b) The County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County has the general jurisdiction of a probate court within the limits of Tarrant County, concurrent with the jurisdiction of the County Court of Tar-rant County and the Probate Cou”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conger v. Dalrymple
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.