Sauceda v. Kerlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When one or more causes of action for which attorney fees are not permitted by statute or contract are alleged in a petition and are investigated and pursued at trial, it is incumbent upon the party asserting those causes of action to segregate them from those for which attorney fees can be recovered. A recognized exception to this duty to segregate arises when the attorney fees rendered are in connection with claims arising out of the same transaction and are so interrelated that their “prosecution or defense entails proof or denial of essentially the same facts.” When the causes of action involved in.the suit are dependent upon the same set of facts or circumstances and thus are “intertwined to the point of being inseparable,” the party suing for attorney fees may recover the entire amount covering all claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Snook v. Jan v. Popiel, Inc.

2. “[T]he duty of the executive ... requires the holder of the executive right ... to acquire for the non-executive every benefit that he exacts for himself.”); Schlittler v. Smith, 128 Tex. 628 , 101 S.W.2d 543, 545 (1937). . In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 744 (Tex.2003). . See HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 889 (Tex.1998) (citing Danciger Oil & Ref. Co. of Tex. v. Powell, 137 Tex. 484 , 154 S.W.2d 632, 635 (1941)) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kerlin v. Sauceda