Gann v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘Under Rule 475, T. R. C. P., the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District of Texas is directed to conform its ruling and decision to this opinion. Costs are taxed against respondents.’ “The Supreme Court disapproved of the rule heretofore followed by this Court and set forth in Thomas v. Meyer, Tex. Civ. App., 168 S. W. 2d 681 , and held that although exception 9 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats., required a causal connection between the injury suffered and the crime committed for an action to constitute a ‘suit based upon a crime,’ it was not necessary to prove this causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence as this was not a ‘venue fact’ requiring proof. It was said that ‘this (causal connection) is determined on a venue hearing as a matter of law from the pleadings.’ “The Supreme Court, as pointed out in its opinion, did not have before it either the record or the briefs filed in this Court, and expressly limited its decision to the question of causal con nection and refrained from passing ‘upon the question of whether an offense was alleged and proved in the case at bar.’ In our former opinion, we assumed, without deciding, that a violation of the penal code had been shown. However, in view of the action of the Supreme Court in overruling Thomas v. Meyer, Tex. Civ. App., 168 S. W. 681 , it now becomes our duty to decide whether or not the evidence shows that a crime was in fact committed. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Texas”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gann v. Keith

2. ““ ‘When on the trial of the pleas of privilege filed by the appellees, Raymond Earl Mabra and Ben E. Keith, appellants proved commission of two crimes in Wilson County, Texas, by the appellee, Raymond Earl Mabra, while acting in the course of his employment for said appellee, Ben E. Keith, both of which crimes were negligence as a matter of law, was it necessary for appellants to prove that at least one of such crimes was the proximate cause of their injuries in order to establish venue in Wilson County, Texas, under Exception 9 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas?’ “In its opinion the Supreme Court suggested that a negative answer was proper and held that, ‘Plaintiffs were required to prove “that the crime * * * was in fact committed and that it was committed in the county where the suit is pending.” Compton v. Elliott, supra, 126 Texas 232 , 88 S. W. 2d 91 . The pleadings will determine as a matter of law for purposes of venue whether or not their suit is based upon that crime.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gann v. Keith

3. ““ ‘Whenever a vehicle is parked or stopped upon a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto, whether attended or unattended during the times mentioned in Section 109, such vehicle shall be equipped with one or more lamps which shall exhibit a white light on the roadway side visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the front of such vehicle and a red light visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear, except that local authorities may provide by ordinance or resolution that no lights be displayed upon any such vehicle when stopped or parked in accordance with local parking regulations upon a highway where there is sufficient light to reveal any person within a distance of five hundred (500) feet upon such highway. Any lighted head lamps upon a parked vehicle shall be depressed of dimmed.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gann v. Keith