Lincoln v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Tripp v. Harryman (1981), 241 Mo. App. 1202 - Phelps v. Phelps (1952)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Darby v. Farmers' State Bank of Burkburnett · Wasson v. Davis · Hix v. Tomlinson · Prutzman v. Winter · Johnson v. Harrington
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants admit that they did not plead that the ‘said contract had been novated, abandoned, rescinded, and/or a new contract substituted therefor,’ but they contend that a novation was sufficiently pleaded by them in their supplemental answer * * *. “Appellants contend that appellees waived any right to complain about their pleadings since they did not except to them as provided for in Rule 90, Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 90 provides that every defect, omission, or fault in the pleadings, either of form or substance, which is not specifically pointed out by •motion or exception in writing and brought to the attention of the judge shall be [deemed] to have been waived by the party seeking reversal on such account. But we do not believe such rule is applicable here since appellees are not seeking a ‘reversal’ because of the insufficiency of the pleadings but they are seeking to uphold the judgment rendered by the trial court which held that the pleadings were sufficient. It is our opinion that appellants’ pleadings did not give sufficient notice to the adverse party that they were claiming novation as a defense. Rule 47 of Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a pleading for a ‘counter-claim’ or ‘cross-action’ ‘shall contain a short statement of the cause of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim involved.’ It appears to us that the appellants did not comply with the provisions of Rule 47. “Appellants contend further that when th”
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.