Sommers v. Concepcion’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
21 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 268th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362
Relies on Liteky et al United States · Kalb v. Feuerstein · United States v. Phillips · Kalb v. Feuerstein · Chicago Ry Co v. Schendel Same
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; 2 and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he decision whether to order return of funds is discretionary and does not affect the court’s power to enter a judgment awarding funds to the proper party. Even though the court did not require [the two attorneys] to re-deposit the fees awarded to them, the court had the power to enter judgment that [the bankrupt attorney] recover funds from [these attorneys]. Accordingly, appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying [his] motion to require return of the funds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A party’s remedy for unfair rulings is to assign error regarding the adverse rulings.”). The City has not requested that this Court grant mandamus relief from either of the rulings that it contends demonstrate the trial court's failure to treat the parties consistently. .At the hearing, the trial court took the City's motion under advisement stating,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re City of Dallas
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.