Reed v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Now, turning to the limitations cases, these themselves sometimes state the rule in terms not altogether clear. In holding the statute not to have been tolled by suit, they sometimes speak as if the intent of the filer of the suit, at the time of filing, is what controls, and yet go on to ascertain his intent exclusively by reference to his conduct both after and at the time of filing. For example, in Ricker, Lee & Co. v. Shoemaker, supra [ 81 Tex. 22 , 16 S.W. 645 ] in which the filer testified in effect to his intent, at the time of filing and, indeed, thereafter, to prosecute his case, but said he had been unable to get out citation for approximately a year because of lack of funds wherewith to pay the costs, we held that, as a matter of law, the statute was not interrupted, although referring to his original intent as the test. See also Owen v. City of Eastland, 124 Tex. 419 , 78 S.W.2d 178 . However, it now appears to be expressly settled that prosecution of the suit with diligence is necessary in order to toll the statute. Buie v. Couch, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 565, 566 , wr. of er. refused; Adams v. Slattery, 156 Tex. 433 , 295 S.W.2d 859 . In the Buie case, in which a delay of nine months in getting out citation was held, as a matter of law, to prevent tolling the statute, the court quoted with approval the language of an earlier decision to the effect that ‘there must be a bona fide intention also that process be issued and served and due diligence exercised that s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knox v. DONOVAN LOWERY INSURANCE AGENCY

2. ““As reflected in Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85 ; reversing Johnson v. Bevil, Tex.Civ.App., 304 S.W.2d 953 , a suit may properly be dismissed for past lack of diligence in its prosecution, notwithstanding that the plaintiff’s objection to the dismissal at the corresponding hearing was in effect a manifestation of his intent to prosecute it (thereafter, at least) to judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Petroleum Refining Company v. McGlothlin