Smith v. Bolin’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 209 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co. (1965), Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride (1958)
21 federal appellate · 209 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 Meinhard v. Salmon · Gulbenkian v. Penn · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull · White v. White · Wendt v. Fischer
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s managing partner of their partnership enterprise, respondent owed his partners even a greater duty of loyalty than is normally required.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In determining the question of whether or not material issues of fact were raised by the evidence, the court must, under the law, first review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioners; disregard the conflicts in the testimony; and indulge, in favor of the petitioners, every intendment reasonably deducible from the evidence.” Smith et al. v. Bolin et al., 1954, 153 Tex. 486 , 271 S.W.2d 93, 94 ; Gulbenkian v. Penn, 1952, 151 Tex. 412 , 252 S.W.2d 929 . , J”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The duty of the court hearing the motion for summary judgment is to determine if there are any issues of fact to be tried, and not to weigh the evidence or determine its credibility, and thus try the case on the affidavits. * * * ‘The underlying purpose of Rule 166-A was elimination of patently unmeritorious claims or untenable defenses; not being intended to deprive litigants of their right to a full hearing on the merits of any real issue of fact.’ The burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of any material fact is upon the movant, and ‘All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for a summary judgment.’ * * * “ ‘In determining a motion thus depending upon extrinsic evidence, the court’s task is analogous to that which he performs on a motion for directed verdict. He accepts as true all evidence of the party opposing the motion which tends to support such party’s contention, and gives him the benefit of every reasonable inference which properly can be drawn in favor of his. position.’ * * * “The general rule is that if a motion involves the credibility of affiants or deponents, or the weight of the showings or, it is said, a mere ground of inference, the motion will not be granted.” Authorities cited.”
2 later decisions 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.