Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Tex. 291 - Knox v. Long

Knox v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

219
cited by 219 later decisions
3
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

215 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 219 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Long v. Knox (1956), Comet Aluminum Company v. Dibrell (1970)

215 state decisions

6101953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hickman v. Taylor · Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas · Coleman v. Zapp · Nye v. Bradford · Love v. State Bank & Trust 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 219 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ 'A judgment is in fact rendered whenever the trial judge officially announces his decision in open court, or out of court signifies to the clerk, in his official capacity and for his official guidance — whether orally or by written memorandum — the sentence of the law pronounced by him in any cause. This pronouncement of the court it is incumbent upon the clerk to forthwith enter. The writing out of the judgment in the form of a judgment file, to be recorded, is a matter of subsequent clerical action. * * * Here is recognized a clear distinction not only between the judgment and the writing which is required to be made to evidence it, but also between the rendition of the judgment and the preparation of this writing at some subsequent time.’ ””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The failure of the minute entry to correctly or fully recite what the court judicially determined does not annul the act of the court, which remains the judgment of the court notwithstanding its imperfect record. Hence it is that from the earliest times the power of correcting or amending their records, by nunc pro tunc entry, so as to faithfully recite their action, has been possessed and exercised by the courts as an inherent right, independent of any statute, and, in the absence of express provision, unaffected by limitation. . . . Our statutes govern the procedure of its exercise; but they are only cumulative of this inherent power of the courts to have their records at all times speak the truth. . . .” Coleman v. Zapp, 105 Tex. 491 , 151 S.W. 1040 (1912).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"At this point in the proceedings we think it may safely be said that no judgment of the court had yet been rendered in any of the 182 cases for it appears beyond dispute that although the docket entries had been signed the entries were provisional and the judge was still in control of all of them with no intention of permitting any of them to become judgments of the court until he first satisfied himself that none of the cases were active."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.