Barker v. Weingarten Riverside Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1978
10 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 Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps · Griggs Canning Co. v. Josey · Patterson v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * However, the controlling question in the present proceedings is whether or not a lawful verdict was returned which could serve as the basis for a judgment. “Rules Nos. 290 to 295, inclusive, of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, relate to the verdict of the jury. Rule 290 defines a verdict as being ‘a written declaration by a jury of its decision, comprehending the whole or all the issues submitted to the jury, and shall be either a general or special verdict, as directed, which shall be signed by the foreman of the jury/ Rule 293 relates to the return of the verdict into court when all the jurymen agree thereto. Rule 294 provides that, ‘either party shall have the right to have the jury polled.’ Rule 295 relates to an informal or defective verdict, while Rule 291 provides that, ‘No special form of verdict is required, and the judgment shall not be arrested or reversed for mere want of form therein if there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the law in rendering a verdict. No verdict shall be rendered in any cause except upon the concurrence of all members of the jury trying the case.’ “In the present case, certain inquiries made of the jury by the court were not answered and the foreman did not sign the instrument or form provided for the jury’s use in returning a verdict, as required by Rule 290. This instrument, which we will for convenience refer to as the ‘verdict form,’ was returned into open court on March 10, 1955. At that time it was no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * After reading this written statement to the attorneys present, the court had the jury brought into the courtroom and thereupon inquired of the jury if they had agreed upon the answers made. The foreman and other members of the jury indicated to the court that they had agreed on the issues answered and could not agree on the remaining issues. The court received the verdict from the foreman and at that time before counsel for either of the parties had examined the verdict the judge discharged the jury. * * * “ * * * The evidence beyond a doubt shows that the members of the jury were in complete agreement as to the answers which they had made and so stated to the court in the courtroom. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
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.