King v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 state decisions

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

1. ““When a minor, lunatic, idiot or a non-compos mentis may be a defendant to a suit and has no guardian within this State, or where such person is a party to a suit either as plaintiff, defendant or intervenor and is represented by a next friend or a guardian who appears to the court to have an interest adverse to such minor, lunatic, idiot or non-compos men-tis, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for such person and shall allow him a reasonable fee for his services to be taxed as a part of the costs.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Welch · Byrd v. Woodruff

2. ““Rule 44. May Appear by Next Friend Minors, lunatics, idiots, or persons non compos mentis who have no legal guardian may sue and be represented by ‘next friend’ under the following rules: ‘(1) Such next friend shall have the same rights concerning such suits as guardians have, but shall give security for costs, or affidavits in lieu thereof, when required. ‘(2) Such next friend or his attorney of record may with the approval of the court compromise suits and agree to judgments, and such judgments, agreements and compromises, when approved by the court, shall be forever binding and conclusive upon the party plaintiff in such suit.’ ” “Rule 173 — Guardian Ad Litem When a minor, lunatic, idiot or a non-compos mentis may be a defendant to a suit and has no guardian within this State, or where such person is a party to a suit either as plaintiff, defendant or intervenor and is represented by a next friend or a guardian who appears to the court to have an interest adverse to such minor, lunatic, idiot or non-compos mentis, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for such person and shall allow him a reasonable fee for his services to be taxed as a part of the costs.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gallegos v. Clegg

3. “[Rjelators are wrong in their contention that in deciding the question the trial judge could not take into account the fact that Mrs. King probably would soon receive a substantial sum in cash. If the anticipated payment was sufficiently certain to serve as security for a loan of an amount necessary to comply with Rule 354, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, it was the duty of the judge to give consideration to that fact. . . . The trial judge may require a litigant who is without funds but who has ready and adequate credit to use that credit to give security for costs. [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allred v. Lowry