Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 F.2d 171 - Roos v. Texas Co.

Roos v. Texas Co.’s Empirical Analysis

23 F.2d 171 · 1927

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968), Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. (1946)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

1401927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Payne v. Hook · Camp v. Gress · Barney v. Baltimore City

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

  1. “* * * the case appears to us to be one where the rights of the beneficiaries [in proceeds of a lease] are so entangled with one another that it is practically impossible in the decree to protect those who are absent. They are indispensable to any dealing with the case at all. " (Emphasis supplied.) 81 There is nothing in Judge Hand's opinion which affords an iota of support for the view that he considered the feasibility of fashioning a decree adequate to preserve an attorneys' lien so that the suit might proceed notwithstanding their absence as parties. The fact of the matter is that Judge Hand rejected the notion that a decree could be entered impounding proceeds of the lease, on the ground that such action would be "in substance a denial of any relief at all.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Rescission of a contract, or declaration of its invalidity, as to some of the parties, but not as to others, is not generally permitted”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “in substance a denial of any relief at all [to the plaintiffs],”
    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.