Robbins v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1985
11 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 Jones v. Carter · Khoury v. Saik · Reber v. Ill. Cent. R. Co. · Moore v. Summerville · Dorsey v. Sullivan
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the Lion Oil Company is shown by the pleadings to be vitally concerned in the title of the Van Zandts, on which its title depends, it was a necessary party to the cause, but has never had its day in court. We cannot know what, if any, defense it may have, but the cause should not have been heard without due and proper notice to it, and the decree cannot stand in view of its absence. The bill was not dismissed as to it; and no explanation of the failure to serve process on it appears in the record. This matter was dealt with by us in the case of Dorsey et al. v. Sullivan, 199 Miss. 602 , 24 So. (2d) 852 . That case involved a final decree, it is true, but the same principle governs both final and interlocutory decrees, such as the one involved here. The rule is set out in Section 556, Griffith’s Mississippi Chancery Practice, as follows: “Where there are several defendants, the cause is not ready for trial as to one, until ready as to all of the defendants,” citing Kelly v. Brooks, 57 Miss. 225, 227 , and Hunt v. Walker, 40 Miss. 590 . The question was also before us in the case of Khoury et al. v. Saik, 203 Miss. 155 , 33 So. (2d) 616, 618 . In our opinion there, we said: “Griffith’s Mississippi Chancery Practice, Sec. 624, p. 713, announces the rule to be that: ‘It is error to proceed to final decree where one defendant has not been served with process and is not dismissed, or where the suit is not ready for final hearing as to all of the parties, ... ’ And, we have an”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[n]o error not distinctly assigned shall be argued by counsel except upon request of the Court, but the Court may, at its option, notice a plain error not assigned or distinctly specified.”
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.