Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2011 OKCIVAPP 17 - Woods v. Computer Sciences Corp.

Woods v. Computer Sciences Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Fanning v. Brown · Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. v. H. Webb Enterprises, Inc. · K & H Well Service, Inc. v. Tcina, Inc. · Nation v. Savely · Hassell v. Texaco, Inc.

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

  1. “‘The term irregularity in obtaining a judgment has no fixed legal meaning. In every instance the question is one of fact, dependent upon the circumstances of each case. It logically follows that the application of this provision of the statute is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, to be exercised in furtherance of justice, on the particular facts of the case.’”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Rule 1 of the Local Court Rules states that '[elompliance with all Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma adopted and amended by the Supreme Court shall be mandatory.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is axiomatic that local court rules may supplement the Supreme Court's Rules for District Courts, but they may not conflict with or supercede them.”
    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.