Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 SW2D 836 - McGrew v. Britton

McGrew v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 1992
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1992

4 state decisions

20194719501960197019801990decided

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 Ragsdale v. Ragsdale · Williams v. Kincannon · American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Points · Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Storey · Klein v. Munz

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

  1. ““Rule 172, Texas Rules Civil Procedure provides for the appointment of an auditor to state the accounts between the parties and to make report thereof to the court, that ‘the court shall award reasonable compensation to such auditor to be taxed as costs of suit.’ The record in the instant case shows that the court fixed the amount of the fees allowed the auditor after a full hearing of the facts in reference to the services rendered and expenses incurred by the auditor and the values thereof. It is well settled by decisions by the courts of this state that the granting or refusal of fees allowed attorneys appointed by the court and fees allowed guardians ad litem are within the sound discretion of the trial court and that the court’s action is not reviewable upon appeal unless it clearly appears from the record that there has been an abuse of such discretion. Japhet v. Pullen, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W. 1188 ; Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Storey, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W. 2d 913 . Affirmed Tex.Com.App., 17, S.W.2d 458; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Points, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 983 ; Hirsch v. Dearing, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 949 . This rule, we think, applies to the action of a trial court in determining the value of the services rendered by an auditor, and the allowance of fees therefor. A consideration of the record, we think, discloses that the trial court in this instance did not abuse his judicial discretion in allowing the fees in question.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions 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.