Thomas v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1972
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Outland · 45 Tenn. App. 264 - Troxel v. Jones · 1 Smith & H. 134 - Chambers v. Sanford and Treadway · Oliver v. Altsheler · Tabor v. Mason Dixon Lines, 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear in order to continue the Secretary’s agency beyond one year from the date of the accident process must be sued out prior to■ the expiration of that year and forwarded to him with reasonable dispatch. The meaning of ‘service of process, sued out prior to the expiration of said time,’ becomes clear when the next and last sentence of the statute in question is taken into consideration. ‘The secretary of state shall keep a docket in which he shall enter the style of the cause, the date of issuance of such process, the date of its receipt by him and the date on which it was forwarded by him to the person named as defendant therein.’ The process which must be sued out prior to the expiration of such time is the one which is addressed to the Secretary of State. The Secretary shall enter, ‘the date of issuance of such process,’ in his docket. It is clear that if the process is not sued out before the expira tion of the time limit the agency of the Secretary cannot he extended.” (Emphasis supplied.) Thomas v. Anderson, supra, at 111 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Speight v. Miller““The nonresident motorist statute, T. C.A. Section 20-224, is not a limitation statute; but is an appointing statute and the Secretary’s agency is both created and limited by the provisions of the statute. Tabor v. Mason-Dixon Lines, Inc., 196 Tenn. 198 , 264 S.W.2d 821 (1953); Oliver v. Altsheler, 198 Tenn. 155 , 278 S.W.2d 675 (1955); Anderson v. Outland, 210 Tenn. 526 , 360 S.W.2d 44 (1962).” 435 S.W. 111 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Henderson v. Ford
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.